Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Criminal Justice

Graham Allen: When he next plans to visit the council estates of Nottingham, North to explain Government policy on the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Goggins: The Home Secretary visited Nottingham on 11 April. He attended a meeting on gun crime and visited local community projects. He has no plans to visit Nottingham, North in the near future.

Graham Allen: I welcome my hon. Friend to his first Question Time. I note that he is one of the most experienced Ministers on the Front Bench and I wish him and his colleagues well in their new positions—and, indeed, those who have their old positions.
	The ministerial team in the Home Department and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have made heroic efforts to amend the criminal justice system to make it more relevant to today's circumstances. However, will my hon. Friend re-examine the possibility of trying to reconnect the criminal justice system more with those who pay for it, by which I mean people living on the estates in our constituencies, many of whom feel disengaged from it? Will my hon. Friend reflect on how best to put that right? Could he run a pilot scheme, for example, to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is far too long. I call the Minister.

Paul Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes, and, in saying that, I am sure that I speak not just for myself but for other members of the Front-Bench team.
	It is important to understand that criminal justice policy and legislation are not for the House alone; they must go out right across estates such as those in my hon. Friend's constituency. In Nottinghamshire, as elsewhere throughout the country, we now have local criminal justice boards whose job it is to ensure that these policies are better communicated to build public confidence in the criminal justice system. The local criminal justice boards have to produce an annual report and can also publish newsletters and other forms of communication. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that CJS Online includes a page dedicated to the local board in his area.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister encourage the Home Secretary to go to Nottingham, North, whose electors doubtless wish to be reassured that the Minister responsible for the criminal justice system is based in this House, has political legitimacy by election and does not owe his present position to the fact that he is a friend of the Prime Minister?

Paul Goggins: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take every opportunity to visit Nottingham, but when he goes there, or anywhere else in the country, it will be abundantly clear that he, as Home Secretary, is in charge of criminal justice policy.

Oliver Letwin: I, too, welcome the new Minister—and, indeed, the other new Ministers—to the Dispatch Box. We hope to add considerably to their work load.
	I am sorry that the Home Secretary will not visit Nottingham's council estates in the near future. When he eventually does so, will he explain to the people living there the difference between the Prime Minister's early pledge that he would
	"halve the time from arrest to sentencing"
	for young offenders, and the Government's press release of June this year in which they claim to meet the pledge only by redefining it as
	"to halve the time it takes to get persistent young offenders into court from the time they were arrested"?
	Does the Minister believe that the people of Nottingham cannot spot the difference between getting young people into court and getting them convicted?

Paul Goggins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes and I can reassure him that we kept the pledge that we made. I took an early look into the problem: when we took office in 1997, it was 142 days, whereas it is now consistently 71 days or fewer.

Oliver Letwin: Oh yes, the "it" has been kept, but it has changed. Getting people into court is not the same as getting them convicted. If it were, the Home Secretary's vast legislative energies would be entirely wasted.
	When the Minister eventually visits Nottingham, will he also tell people living on the council estates why he is today quietly bringing to a Committee Upstairs a regulation that will abolish the statutory time limits for youth justice that the Government themselves introduced in 1999? Will he explain to the people of Nottingham why on 14 May 1998, the Minister's predecessor, the then Under-Secretary, said that abolishing those regulations would
	"undermine our wish to administer justice expeditiously, particularly for young offenders"?—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 May 1998; c. 399.]
	Why have the Government been pretending, as the Minister just has, that they have fulfilled the Prime Minister's pledge when, in reality, the failure to fulfil it is so abject that they are now repealing the legislation that sought to implement it in the first place? Will the Minister explain to the people of Nottingham why the Government have descended to the level of fiddling their own pledges?

Paul Goggins: May I explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the pledge and the time limits are two entirely different but complementary objectives? The pledge that he read out from the pledge card has been kept, and we have reflected on the need for time limits. The fact that we are removing statutory time limits does not remove the urgency of timeliness within the criminal justice system.

Drugs Policy

John Barrett: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Justice Minister regarding the co-ordination of UK drugs policy.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) last met the Scottish Deputy Justice Minister, Hugh Henry MSP, at the British-Irish Council meeting on 7 February. A programme of drug-related activities was agreed at that meeting to improve co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations and to share experiences and good practice.

John Barrett: I congratulate the Minister on her new appointment. Are there any plans to work with the new Justice Minister to reduce the amount of drugs entering the country, both north and south of the border? What message can she send to my constituents to prove that everything that can be done is being done?

Caroline Flint: The Scottish Executive are also represented on a number of cross-Government official groups and committees and there is strong liaison north and south of the border. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government and the Scottish Executive take the abuse of drugs, and the crime that emanates from it, very seriously. It is a major priority for the Government.

David Cairns: Given that 90 per cent. of the heroin on the streets of Scotland—and on the streets of Doncaster—originates from poppies grown in Afghanistan, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the recent report from United Nations inspectors, which says that this year's poppy harvest is likely to be a record bumper crop? Can she give me an assurance that every step will be taken to ensure that that poppy harvest does not become the raw opium that becomes heroin on the streets of Scotland and Doncaster, leading to devastation for her constituents and mine?

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. We need to deal with the source from which drugs come, and I am pleased to inform him that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met the Afghan President only last week. Some £150 million of UK money is being provided to tackle the problem. I know that my hon. Friend works hard on the issue and I will ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of the appropriate Ministers.

Peter Duncan: I welcome the Minister to her new role. Is she aware that one of the major ways to address the drugs problem north and south of the border is by a massive increase in rehabilitation facilities? Will she commit to learning the lessons from experience in both England and Scotland through consultation? That obviously did not happen on Thursday when the post of Secretary of State for Scotland was first abolished, and then reinstated.

Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. What happened last week is not relevant. The Home Secretary has overall responsibility for the UK strategy on drugs and the Scottish Executive have responsibility for implementing strategies and deciding priorities in Scotland. There is no change there, regardless of changes to the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Treatment is very important, and we recognise that north and south of the border. We know that we have to do more in that area, but we are providing resources on a massive scale to ensure that people get the treatment that they need, according to their needs and when they need it.

Tom Harris: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. Does she agree that the recovery of drug dealers' assets is an important weapon in the fight against the drug trade? What mechanisms exist to ensure co-operation between the Assets Recovery Agency in England and Wales and the Crown Office, which is responsible for asset recovery in Scotland? Does she agree that an equally stringent regime on both sides of the border is necessary to prevent drug dealers from moving around to try to take advantage of an apparently more lenient regime?

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If we are going to make progress, it is essential to have co-operation between all the agencies involved. I am only three days into my job, but it will be an issue that I will seek to look at. I welcome any representations from Members of Parliament or their constituents on how the matter is dealt with, locally, regionally and nationally.

Nick Hawkins: I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and welcome her to the Dispatch Box. When she considers the Home Office's responsibilities for drug strategy, will she bear in mind the great anger in all parts of the country—not only Scotland—at the fact that British taxpayers' money is used to purchase and supply hard drugs to prisoners in Scottish prisons? Will she also bear in mind the fact that anti-drugs campaigners are very angry about the messages given on the Home Office's Talk to Frank website, which appear to provide excuses for drug taking rather than to steer children away from drugs?

Caroline Flint: We do not provide any excuse for drug taking. I will look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises in relation to prisons, but I am afraid that I do not have the information to hand. We take the situation very seriously, and our priority is to tackle hard drugs—class A drugs—because they cause the most harm to individuals and provoke the most crime.

Mersey Tunnels Police Force

Ben Chapman: The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (

Hazel Blears: The Merseyside passenger transport authority, Merseytravel, which is primarily responsible for the Mersey Tunnels police and for the safe operation of the tunnels, is seeking judicial review of the coroner's report and the report by the Police Complaints Authority into the deaths of Darren Franey and Scott Veach. My officials are working closely with the Department for Transport to ensure that the Mersey tunnels are policed in a professional and effective manner, but it would be sensible to await the outcome of the legal proceedings before determining the way forward.

Ben Chapman: While I have reservations about a police force reporting to what I regard as an unaccountable body—Merseytravel—and about Merseytravel's using public funds to pursue judicial review against what I regard as well-intentioned comments by the coroner, is it not time to have a thorough look at all the quasi-independent, non-territorial police forces, which have a tendency to become fiefdoms without common standards or automatic recourse to the Police Complaints Authority? Is it not time that we considered whether they might be brought into the general policing effort and the regular constabularies? For example, do we really need police forces for separate markets?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend raises some important points. The non-Home Office constabularies perform a range of duties mainly confined to the policing of private property. I understand his concern that those forces should meet the same training, ethical and professional skills standards as the rest of the police force. I am happy to reassure him that we are working with the Department for Transport on the British Transport police, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the parks police, and with the Department of Trade and Industry on the atomic energy police. We are making sure that we get the same standards across the police. Joined-up, effective policing is our top priority.

Policing (London)

Clive Efford: What assessment he has made of the impact on local police forces of the extraction of police officers for security in central London.

David Blunkett: May I first, for myself and on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, welcome the rest of our Front-Bench team? I also wish my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins)—the only other male in the team—a very happy 50th birthday
	The day-to-day deployment of the service is in the hands of the commissioner. We recognise that there is a real issue concerning the deployment of staff to counter potential terrorist acts. That is why we have allocated £62 million this year, and 300 community support officers have been specifically deployed so that their work and surveillance can complement that of the police.

Clive Efford: I appreciate that it is difficult to address heightened security in central London. However, the abstraction of officers from local police forces is having a debilitating effect on their strategies to deal with antisocial behaviour and other crimes in our communities. The people of Eltham and Plumstead deserve as much security in their homes and communities as do those in central London. In approaching this issue in future, might it be possible to scrutinise the abstraction of officers to ensure that they are taken only for essential services, because their abstraction is having a damaging effect locally?

David Blunkett: In spite of the additional resources that I have just mentioned, the deployment of community support officers and the additional 2,000 officers in the Metropolitan police over the 18 months to last September, there is undoubtedly a problem. I raised that problem with the Met commissioner last week, and the police are monitoring the situation and developing graphs showing the incidence of street crimes, burglary, vehicle crime and crime in other targeted areas in relation to the number of officers available.
	In the boroughs, an average of eight or nine officers are being taken out each week for the present surveillance in central London. The commissioner and I believe that we need to examine the situation further and to ensure that complementary work is done by those examining the danger of terrorism and those undertaking normal day-to-day duties. I am keen to reassure my hon. Friend that we are on top of the situation and are demonstrating that more police, more visible police and more back-up from community support officers make a difference, but that we must make that difference not only in central London, where crime has dropped dramatically, but in boroughs such as my hon. Friend's.

John Horam: I am glad that the Secretary of State recognises that there is a problem. Is he aware that it is persistent in the London borough of Bromley and that it was made worse recently when we learned that the number of additional police officers we were expecting this year has been halved due to what is called a funding crisis in the Metropolitan police? Is he aware of that funding crisis, and what can he tell the House about it?

David Blunkett: One person's crisis is another person's opportunity: the opportunity to employ 1,200 extra police this coming year and the opportunity to employ 500 additional community support officers—a large number. In the mid-1990s, in the days when the Opposition were starting the process of running down the police force, the crisis was a reality because fewer police meant a crisis on the streets. If more police, more CSOs and more visibility is a crisis, the word has taken on an entirely different meaning.

Nicholas Soames: Is the Home Secretary aware that the extraction of police from other local forces seriously affects Sussex police, who continue to lose high-grade and experienced officers to the Met through its predatory approach? Will he turn his attention to the fact that, although that may be good for the Met, it is very bad for Sussex police?

David Blunkett: Just three years ago, the drain away from the Metropolitan police was reaching dangerous levels. The reversal of that has of course placed strain on forces immediately outside London, which is why now, and through our continuing conversations with chief constables, we are doing everything possible to achieve a balance by appropriate measures and rewards, including housing, for the most affected authorities.

James Paice: I join in the Home Secretary's welcome to his team, and especially in his birthday greetings to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins). If the hon. Gentleman does not yet look his age, doing that job he soon will.
	Do not the figures show clearly that, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, removing police officers from one area to deal with problems in another simply creates a vacuum for crime? Extraction as routine practice rather than in dire emergency is merely a measure of the fact that not enough police officers are available; so does the Secretary of State accept, as his speech last week appeared to, our proposals and policies for dedicated neighbourhood policing, with specific career and accountability structures to ensure that the police really are where our constituents expect to see them—on the streets?

David Blunkett: After 11 September 2001, it was inevitable that there would be extraction; there had to be, in order to redeploy to meet a particular problem. That was stepped up again to meet people's fears of reaction to the conflict in Iraq. I have already demonstrated that the commissioner and I are keen to take a further look at the matter and to ensure that the improvement in inner London has not been made to the detriment of those in the outer boroughs.
	I can do nothing other than accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures on neighbourhood policing, because, on 5 December 2001, I published a White Paper that spelt out clearly that that was the Government's objective. We have been gratified to learn both from the commissioner and from chief constables that there is recognition that the switch away from neighbourhood and community policing a decade ago was a mistake.

Active Citizenship

Piara S Khabra: What plans he has to promote community engagement and active citizenship.

Fiona Mactaggart: Last week, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published a comprehensive statement on civic renewal. It is fundamentally about unlocking the power and potential of local communities and their citizens, enabling active citizens to provide solutions to their own problems. We are bringing the civic renewal agenda into everything we do in the Home Office, whether criminal justice reform, policing or the development of assets in the community. Community engagement and active citizenship are key to a healthy society and crucial to delivering the Government's objectives.

Piara S Khabra: I thank my hon. Friend for that response and congratulate her and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on their appointments to the Front Bench.
	What plans does the Home Office have to ensure that those efforts to engage the community in citizenship will reach out to the ethnic minority communities, too? What contacts will my hon. Friend make with other Departments to ensure that that is the case?

Fiona Mactaggart: I suspect that one reason why I have been appointed to this role is absolutely to do that, because I will have responsibility for volunteering and citizenship activity and for racial equality. I really believe that making those contacts with communities and enabling other Departments to ensure that they engage communities and that the race equality aspects of their policies are effective will be key in delivering the responsibilities that the Home Secretary has given me.

David Cameron: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment. Does she agree that there is probably no better way to be an active citizen than to become a special constable? As a Thames valley Member herself, will she explain why she thinks that the number of special constables has fallen by so much and what the Government will do to try to reverse the trend?

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman is right that special constables form a very important part of civic engagement, and I am pleased to note that many special constables in my area have taken up full-time employment with the police, as we are increasing police recruitment. I suspect that the number of special constables has fallen because many of them have been able to take on professional responsibilities and use their experience as specials to enable them to become professional police officers. I hope that more people will take that route into serving our communities.

Angela Eagle: May I offer my warmest congratulations to my hon. Friend on her promotion to the Front Bench? Does she agree that active citizenship can flourish only in an atmosphere where bigotry and hatred are banished and unacceptable? To that end, does she agree that we still have much to do in relation to equality law and updating our anti-discrimination legislation to ensure that all our citizens can be free from the horror of being discriminated against because of their beliefs, colour, gender, age or sexual orientation? Will she support further Government action to provide protections in those important areas?

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for her generous remarks. I agree that we have to work to free our society from bigotry and the way in which bigotry and prejudice fuel attacks and diminish people's rights. Part of the way to do that is through legislation, but there is more to be done by challenging attitudes, engaging communities and so on. I hope that we will go forward on both those fronts to deliver an effective way to engage people properly and to diminish the bigotry and prejudice that blight our communities.

Vincent Cable: Does the Minister agree that nothing is more important to community engagement and active citizenship than schools and voluntary organisations working with young people? Can she explain why—after a year's disruption caused by the delays and incompetence of the Criminal Records Bureau and the appalling company, Capita—those organisations are now faced with a doubling of charges?

Fiona Mactaggart: I understand that there has been no doubling of charges for volunteer checks or any charge for checking on volunteers. If I am wrong about that in any way—I am new to these responsibilities—I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. Of course, there are expensive charges for professional staff, and that affects voluntary organisations, but it is important that we protect people effectively. It is also important that we do not inhibit people from volunteering because of the cost of checking criminal records.

Knives

Hugh Bayley: If he will make a statement on what action the Government are taking to deter the use of knives in street crime, with special reference to knife-point robbery.

Caroline Flint: It is important to deter the use of knives and other offensive weapons in any type of crime, and the Government do so by providing legislation and police powers to prevent the possession or use of knives and other offensive weapons. For instance, it is an offence for any person to have an offensive weapon in a public place or on school premises, punishable by a prison sentence of up to two years, or for any person to sell knives to people under the age of 16.
	The street crime initiative was launched in March 2002 to reduce all street crime, irrespective of whether a weapon is used in committing the crime. I am pleased to report that, in the first six months of that ongoing initiative, street crime fell by 16 per cent. in the areas covered.

Hugh Bayley: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment to the Front Bench. York is one of the safest cities in the country, which is one reason that it attracts so many visitors. Nevertheless, there has been a significant increase in robbery—a threefold increase over the last three years—which, in a few cases, has involved the use of knives, particularly by young children. What are the Government doing to help police forces, such as North Yorkshire police and other law enforcement agencies, to get on top of this problem?

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes and for raising an important problem, especially when children are using weapons for violent activities. Although North Yorkshire is not in the street crime initiative area, I hope that his local area, and the wider area of North Yorkshire, will benefit from the lessons learned from the initiative through the spread of best practice. At 30 September 2002, there were 131,548 police officers in England and Wales, and 1,404 police officers in North Yorkshire, compared with 1,305 the previous year. Those are record numbers, but we need to look at sharing best practice and initiatives across the whole of England and Wales.

George Osborne: The Minister said that in the first six months of the street crime initiative street crime had fallen. Given that we have had nine months since the end of that first six-month period, what has happened since then?

Caroline Flint: I am pleased to report to the hon. Gentleman that street crime has continued to fall. The most recent figures on robbery were published on 4 April 2003 as part of the quarterly crime update. Recorded robbery fell by an estimated 23 per cent. in the period from October to December 2002 compared with the same period in 2001.

Geraint Davies: In congratulating my hon. Friend on her recent appointment, may I ask her to welcome initiatives in Croydon in combating offensive weapons, in particular, charging without a caution anyone with a knife and, from today, banning street drinking in the centre of Croydon so that people who carry bottles, which can be used as offensive weapons, face fixed penalty notices from our new band of police community officers? Will she reassure the House that investment in those front-line services will continue? Will she also talk to other Home Office Ministers, including the Secretary of State, about the possibility of hypothecating the income from these fines on drunken yobs for front-line services to keep crime going down? In Croydon, it is down 6 per cent. in the last year.

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the initiative in Croydon to my attention. I am pleased to hear of these local initiatives, especially when they seem to be working. The Metropolitan police safer streets initiative has had considerable success and he will be aware that we are looking at extending fixed penalty notices under the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which is currently proceeding through Parliament. I am sure that my colleagues on the Front Bench will have heard his latter remarks.

Boris Johnson: Given that beat policemen are the best deterrent against street crime, and given the extreme difficulty of recruiting beat policemen in South Oxfordshire, what does the Minister have to say to Simon Dixon, a constituent of mine who recently applied to join the police, passed all the tests with flying colours, but was turned down on the ground that he had three tattoos on his upper arms: one of a man waving a flag, one of a dog, and one of a mouse sitting on a toadstool smoking a hubble-bubble pipe? None of those tattoos was visible when he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt, yet he was told that they might cause offence to hospital staff were he to be involved in an accident. What can she do to rectify that senseless rejection?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unless the gentleman was carrying a knife, the Minister cannot answer that question.

John Cryer: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench. I appreciate everything that she said about the action that has been taken, but should we not also consider banning such weapons? There are shops in the borough that I represent—the London borough of Havering—in which large and dangerous knives, swords, asps and clubs are openly sold and displayed. They attract younger people in particular, and a series of related crimes have been committed in the borough. Recently, in the constituency of Romford, a man had his right hand removed with a samurai sword. Clearly, and understandably, such crime provokes a great deal of widespread fear. Should not we consider banning the sale of those weapons and certainly banning their display?

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me to the Front Bench. A number of offensive weapons are already banned, but I would be willing to listen to what he has to say, for him to come to see me about the weapons that he mentioned today and to consider whether further measures need to be taken both on display and on whether such weapons should be sold in the first place.

Asylum Seekers

Peter Viggers: What progress he is making with his plans to screen applicants for political asylum outside the United Kingdom.

Beverley Hughes: We have made steady progress in Europe with our proposals for zones of protection. In particular, we welcome contributions from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the European Commission, which recently published a positive communication about our proposals. We are working with a number of our EU partners to develop aspects of our ideas on zones of protection, but the proposals will not obviate the need for continued action to bear down on abuse of the asylum system here, which is why we will continue with our package of robust measures, including introducing new measures where necessary to ensure that our system works effectively.

Peter Viggers: May I commiserate with the hon. Lady on the continuation of her extremely difficult duties? In view of the vehement and near unanimous hostility to the concept of open accommodation centres in the areas in which they may be located and of the fact that the overwhelming majority of immigrants stay here, regardless of the merit of their case, is there not a case for accelerating consideration of the policy of screening political asylum seekers outside the United Kingdom, as proposed by the Conservative party?

Beverley Hughes: When I have more time to respond I would like to engage the hon. Gentleman in discussion on why I think that the Tories' proposals are full of holes. Interestingly, Tory Front Benchers have commissioned Mr. Timothy Kirkhope—a former Minister with responsibility for immigration who was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee—to help them to fill the holes.
	We need a broad strategy. We need immediate action to secure our borders, which we have done, and to transform our asylum system, which will include pilots for accommodation centres, because we need a system that can cope robustly with claims. We also need sustainable international solutions to the problems of global migration. We are discussing proposals with our EU partners. They have been generally warmly received and we want to make progress.

Jeremy Corbyn: As screening posts will be outside this country and, indeed, outside countries that signed up to the 1951 Geneva convention, will the Minister confirm that convention standards will apply and that if people applied for asylum at a centre but were not accepted they could still make an in-country application if they arrived in this country and could make a genuine case?

Beverley Hughes: We currently have no plans to process asylum seekers on the borders of the EU, which several newspapers have reported. There is no prospect of any camps—Sangatte-style or otherwise. We want to take forward ideas for regional protection processing, which has the support of the UNHCR. I assure my hon. Friend that those arrangements will conform to our obligations under international conventions. We are making progress on ideas that are important to develop international co-operative responses, but we have never said that those proposals would obviate the need for a robust and comprehensive system in this country, as I said in my first answer. We anticipate that when people claim here, we will have to continue to process some of their claims here.

Simon Hughes: On behalf of all my party colleagues, will the Minister pass on our congratulations and welcome to her colleagues, with whom we look forward to working, and her best wishes to those who have moved on?
	Does the Minister agree that Her Majesty's Government should adopt a twin-track approach on asylum seekers? First, we should encourage asylum seekers to seek asylum at the nearest possible place to the country from which they come, and the UK Government should assist those countries, which are often poor, to deal with asylum seekers who want to come to Europe, often in ever greater numbers. Secondly, we should honour proudly our commitment to uphold the 1951 convention for those who come to Europe and give asylum to those who need it. Does she agree that we should share responsibility and not shirk it, and that all people who apply in an EU country should be processed there and be dealt with fairly and justly at all times by that country?

Beverley Hughes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to my colleagues. I am extremely happy to be carrying on with my responsibilities, which are very important for this country and internationally. He and I have discussed that and I know he understands what an important and interesting area it is.
	We agree that the important issue, which has always been our priority in such international discussions, is to improve regional protection for people. His point about the importance of enabling people to claim as close as possible to the areas from which they are fleeing is an important priority. In relation to claims within EU countries, as I have said throughout my responses to such questions, it is very important both that EU countries act together and that we continue to have a robust, clear and appropriate system within our countries. We have always envisaged that that would need to continue because claims would be made in individual countries. Here in the UK we need to be able to process those claims quickly and efficiently.

Bob Blizzard: My hon. Friend will be aware that Australia uses another country—the island of Nauru—to process its asylum applications. Since that system was introduced, has there not been a dramatic reduction in the amount of people trafficking into that country?

Beverley Hughes: I understand that that is so, and perhaps it is one of the consequences of that aspect of the Australian system. It is more straightforward for Australia to do that. It may also be a response to other aspects of the Australian system. However, my hon. Friend is right to highlight that every country, irrespective of its system, needs to have robust measures, including international co-operation, to tackle illegal trafficking and the activities of criminal gangs, which fuel illegal immigration and the rise in asylum claims. We are doing that substantially both with France and other European countries, not only in those close to home but in source countries and those with the transit routes, which criminal gangs use to bring people into this country.

EU Constitution

Mr. Speaker: I call Angela Watkinson.

John Bercow: Splendid.

Angela Watkinson: What assessment he has made of those sections of the draft EU constitution relating to external border controls.

David Blunkett: I have not spoken yet and the hon. Gentleman says "splendid"!
	There is no threat in the draft constitution that will go to the intergovernmental conference in October to the frontiers protocol secured at Amsterdam by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We have strengthened our own borders by moving the immigration and security measures to the French coast, by closing down the routes through the Frethun and Coquelles depots and by securing better the route through the channel tunnel. Things are much more secure than they have ever been and that will remain the case.

Angela Watkinson: Does the Home Secretary recognise that the only effective way of overcoming the asylum chaos is to scrap the existing system altogether and introduce a quota system for genuine refugees?

David Blunkett: I proposed a quota system in the White Paper a year last February. Along with UNHCR, I am implementing the first steps, as of last 1 April, to do just that. However, we also have to deal with a situation in which quotas are irrelevant, which occurs when people reach our soil. Opposition Members, including the shadow Home Secretary, have to answer a simple question: if someone arrives in Britain from Zimbabwe and claims asylum, what do we do with him?

Chris Bryant: The Home Secretary may well have heard over recent days much huff and puff in many of the tabloid newspapers about the draft constitutional treaty and what it will do to border controls and asylum and immigration in Europe. Will he ignore all that nonsense and focus on the genuine issue at hand, which is ensuring that we have a better integrated system with the rest of Europe so that we have justice and fairness for those who claim asylum and seek to immigrate?

David Blunkett: Yes, I agree entirely. We need much greater co-operation, but not a unified and centrally operated force, along the new borders of the extended European Union. All parties in the House are committed to that. We have experimented with that by helping the Spanish with those who traverse the Mediterranean and the straits of Gibraltar, and we are doing the same with other countries. I hope that we can do much more. However, I hope that we can act in a civilised, rational and organised fashion once people are inside the EU.

Dominic Grieve: I do not understand the Home Secretary's comments about the EU constitution. In its draft form it explicitly says that the Union
	"shall ensure the absence of internal border controls for persons and shall frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border control".
	Does he agree with the Leader of the House that that is just a bit of "tidying up", because that appears to be at variance with my understanding of the text?
	Secondly, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said that even if we had international co-operation we would still need robust measures to deal with issues such as asylum. Will it not become impossible to take those robust measures nationally? If so, will the Home Secretary kindly tell the House whether, in those circumstances, the Government intend to veto the proposal, or will he explain why the sacrifice needs to be made to accept it?

David Blunkett: On the latter point, I make it abundantly clear that not a single measure that we are taking would be ruled out or disqualified by the changes to be put to the intergovernmental conference in October—not one.
	On internal border controls, the Government secured, and have had for some time, an opt-out clause on all those matters, including Schengen. The opt-outs remain and are not affected by the Convention's discussions and proposals. I am simply stating a fact. It is no good Opposition Members dreaming up a different protocol, a different Convention and a different constitution, presenting that constitution to the British people and asking them to vote it down when it bears no resemblance to the reality of what the Government are prepared to sign up to.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: But is not an opt-out, by definition, something that comes to an end? Is my right hon. Friend sure that the clause recently added to the Convention, which enables the Commission to change, by its own internal arrangements, the controls over not only immigration but other aspects of the legal system normally decided by the House of Commons, will not have a direct impact irrespective of any opt-out that we hold at the moment?

David Blunkett: Yes, I am certain. I can tell my hon. Friend that neither I nor the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary would sign up to anything that precluded our getting off an escalator that was going somewhere that we did not wish to go.

Asylum Seekers

Teddy Taylor: How many asylum seekers lost their applications for asylum in 2002; and how many of them have left the country.

Beverley Hughes: In the calendar year 2002, 54,650 people received negative initial asylum decisions. Some of those will still be in the appeals process and therefore not yet due for removal. However, during the same period we removed a record number of failed asylum seekers: 10,410 principal applicants, or 13,335 including dependants. That is an increase of 12 per cent. on the previous year and a 45 per cent. increase on 1997. A number of new measures are being taken to continue to increase the number of people removed when they come to the end of a claim that has not been approved.

Teddy Taylor: I thank the Minister for what I hope is hopeful news. Has she read the Home Affairs Committee report of April, which said that it was unsatisfactory that the Government could not even offer a rough estimate of the number of failed asylum seekers remaining in the UK? As it seems that at least 80 per cent. of those who have failed after lengthy and costly appeals remain here, should not the Government try to find out what is happening?
	Is the Minister aware that, according to advice that I have had from my constituents, there is an easy way to remain here? One simply makes a new application in a different name in the next town and starts all over again. I have given the Minister details of individual cases. Will she consider the matter and find out why so many failed asylum seekers remain in this country without any apparent difficulty?

Beverley Hughes: We are tackling some significant issues that make it difficult to remove people when their applications fail, including the problem of redocumenting them to the satisfaction of the country from which they have come. However, we are working actively with those countries, including instituting interviews by high commissioners in detention centres, to make sure that we can redocument people. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, without documentation, we simply cannot put people on planes and ship them out. However, we are addressing that issue.
	We are using the detention estate much more effectively so that we can bring people to the point of removal and then get them out of the country. We are processing people more quickly, we are issuing them all with ID cards, and we require them to report regularly. We are therefore keeping in contact with people. Through those measures, we are able to increase, as I have said, the number of people who are removed. However, we need to go further. Eurodac, the international system that came online in January, enables us to identify whether people have claimed before—here or in another European country. There is a range of robust measures to increase the number of people removed, but it is equally important to reduce the intake. The hon. Gentleman will know that the combined measures that we took with France produced a reduction of 32 per cent. in the first quarter of this year. Reducing the intake is just as important as removing more people.

Glenda Jackson: But when did those who have now been removed first apply for asylum? Many of my constituents are suffering grave disquiet because they have yet to be told whether their application has failed. Certainly, many who have been in this country for a considerable period have experienced a slowing down of the appeals process, most markedly in the acknowledgement of applications. I know that there has been an increase in both financial resources and personnel, but the backlog seems to be getting longer. What comfort can my hon. Friend offer my constituents that they will soon know their situation?

Beverley Hughes: As my hon. Friend is aware—and I am glad that she acknowledged this—extra resources have been provided. The new intake of asylum claims has now been processed, and 75 per cent. will get their initial decision in two months. Further resources have been put into appeals—6,000 asylum appeals a month are now dealt with, so appeals are processed much more quickly.
	My hon. Friend is wrong that the backlog is getting bigger. There is still a backlog, but clearly, as the number of new claims is reduced, we are able to invest more resources in reducing it. In fact, it is going down very considerably indeed. I hope that towards the end of this year we will only have work in progress, and will have eradicated the backlog completely.

Julian Brazier: Is there not an inconsistency between the Minister's robust language and the huge expansion in in-country work permits? Will she confirm that more than 100,000 work permits will be handed out this year to people in-country, many of them without any skills, who are being given a sweetener so that they do not apply for asylum?

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Indeed, the points that he made demonstrate strongly that this is a real issue of difference between the Opposition and the Government. He is completely wrong that there is any link at all between the asylum system and managed migration policies, including work permits. It is not possible for somebody who has claimed asylum to switch to a work permit or any other managed migration route. We make no apology for encouraging people to come here to work, provided that that is done in a regulated and transparent way. Our economy needs it, and we welcome people on that basis. Whether an application for a work permit is made in-country or for somebody outside, it is employers—British business people—who apply for work permits because they want people to work in their businesses and support the UK economy when they cannot employ an indigenous member of the population.

Community Support Officers

Gordon Marsden: What assessment he has made of the effect of community safety wardens on reassuring vulnerable groups in the community about fear of crime.

Ian Lucas: What steps he is taking to gauge the effect of the introduction of community support officers.

Hazel Blears: We have received a good deal of anecdotal information from a wide variety of sources, including letters from members of the public, which have told us that community support officers are having a positive effect in our communities by providing a visible and reassuring policing presence. Funding for CSOs includes a requirement for formal evaluation to be undertaken locally. The 27 forces from the first funding round are due to give us their initial findings by the end of September.

Gordon Marsden: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on her arrival in the Home Office, and thank her for the eight CSOs that we currently have in Blackpool and the further five that we are likely to get in the area in the next couple of months. Having recently spent an evening on the beat with my local police, I was particularly impressed by the way in which CSOs were being used to tackle antisocial behaviour in Blackpool, particularly through the confiscation of alcohol. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the crucial roles of CSOs is to reclaim the streets, especially to the benefit of older people and small businesses in the areas affected by antisocial behaviour, so that as a result of their presence there is a much greater sense of community solidarity?

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his warm welcome to my position. I am delighted that he has taken the initiative to go out with his local force and see for himself the situation on the ground. I am sure that a number of other Members have taken a similar step. My hon. Friend is right that Lancashire, his police area, got 72 community support officers in the first round and another 35 in the second round. As street crime Minister for Lancashire, I had the pleasure of meeting some of the people who have taken up those roles, and I can say that they are making a tremendous impact on their communities. People welcome a strong, visible presence on the streets to make them feel safe, and they know that the Government are determined to make sure that we support people in communities to reclaim our streets and make communities safer.

Ian Lucas: Regrettably, North Wales police was one of the forces that did not apply to supplement the high level of policing already in the area with the addition of community support officers. I know that the funding arrangements favour forces that were wise enough to make applications when the scheme first started. Will the Home Office, and my hon. Friend with her new responsibilities, please reconsider those funding arrangements, to try to encourage the chief constable of North Wales and the North Wales police authority to take larger steps along the route of employing CSOs in the future?

Hazel Blears: Yes. My hon. Friend will be aware that there was an application from North Wales police for community support officers, and that they have been targeted in the Rhyl priority policing area. That is the decision of the chief constable. Clearly, there are funds available and we will have further rounds of community support officers. We want to encourage forces throughout the country to consider how they can get CSOs on the ground, helping their police forces to deliver improved community safety for everybody in our communities. I am happy to give my hon. Friend the reassurance that we will try to encourage his area and others to apply.

John Bercow: I warmly congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment and wish her success in executing her responsibilities. Given that there might well be many people around the country, not least within the Aylesbury Vale district council area, of which my Buckingham constituency forms a part, who welcome the idea of community support officers but who face the prospect of being denied such a provision in practice, what assessment has she made within the past 72 hours of the transparency, consistency and objectivity of the criteria for allocation?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has undergone something of a conversion. Reading the debate on the Police Reform Bill last year, it was apparent to me that the Opposition were lukewarm about community support officers. Now that they have seen that they are such a success on the ground, they would like to have them everywhere. I can tell him that I will be looking at the allocation criteria.
	The Opposition may not have supported CSOs, but they are hugely popular throughout the country. Some of the comments that I have had from the Rhymney area include one from John Vaughn, aged 73, who said:
	"I would say that having the officers patrolling our estate will give us more security, and I think that I will sleep a bit better at night."
	Elderly residents say that they can now go out in the evenings, which they could not do before. The introduction of CSOs is one of the most successful policies that the Government have implemented. I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman's support.

Ann Winterton: Although community support officers might give people some reassurance, it must be accepted that they have no powers. What most people want is more police on the beat and, to reassure them about crime levels, when they report a crime, they want a policeman to turn up. Often, when people ring the station, it says that there are not enough officers on duty to attend the scene of the crime.

Hazel Blears: I also welcome the hon. Lady's conversion. In the past 12 months, police numbers, not community support officer numbers, have risen by 4,337—the largest rise for 27 years, in a 12-month period, in the number of police officers on the ground. It is this Government who have been prepared to put in the resources, together with reform, to ensure that we can provide increased community safety for the people whom we represent.

Regional Assemblies

John Prescott: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the referendums for establishing elected regional assemblies in the English regions.
	First, however, I should like to apologise to the House for the stories that appeared in the press over the weekend and this morning. There has been intense speculation about which regions will move forward to a referendum, but the source of the stories over the weekend appears to have been a leaked Cabinet Committee letter. I can assure the House that that letter was not released on anyone's authority and I can only apologise once again for the leak that has occurred. It is unacceptable and I do everything that I can to stop such leaks but, frankly, this is outside my control and I can only apologise to the House.
	In 1997, this Government inherited one of the most centralised systems of government in the western world, and the House knows that we have reversed that legacy. During the past six years, we have carried out a far-reaching and radical programme of constitutional change. We have decentralised government and transformed our political system through devolution to Scotland and Wales. We are continuing our reforms of the House of Lords and modernising local government. We have restored democratic citywide government to London. All those things were opposed by the Opposition, who eventually came round to accepting them. We have set up strong regional development agencies in England, which have helped to increase investment and employment in all our regions to record levels. We have strengthened regional policy and helped to create a network of eight voluntary regional chambers.
	In May 2002, we published our White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice". It set out our plans for elected regional assemblies in those regions where the people wanted them. It contained proposals for a new regional tier of government that would take powers and responsibilities from central government and not local authorities. The White Paper said that regional assemblies would make a real difference with powers over economic development, jobs, investment, transport, planning, housing, culture, arts and sport. Elected regional assemblies will bring greater democracy and a new political voice to the regions. They will reduce bureaucracy rather than increase it—[Interruption.] The bureaucracy was the regional government offices established by the Opposition when they were in government, with no democratic accountability whatever. That is what we believe was bureaucracy, but we are going to introduce regional accountability and greater democracy.
	Last month, the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 became law. Today, I am taking the first steps under that Act to deliver our undertaking to hold the first regional referendums during this Parliament. We have no intention of forcing elected regional assemblies on any region, but it is clear to me that there are some regions where voters want that opportunity, and I intend to give them that choice. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act sets out what must happen before I can call those referendums. First, I must consider the level of interest in the region in holding a referendum. Secondly, the boundary committee for England must have made recommendations on options for unitary local government in parts of the region that currently have two tiers of local authorities.
	On 2 December 2002, we started a sounding exercise in the eight regions outside London. We gave the soundings document a wide distribution and asked for responses by 3 March. The House will recall that the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill was amended in the Lords in April to allow for a second question in the referendums on the option for unitary local government. The soundings exercise was extended to take that into account, and we asked for further responses by 16 May. In assessing levels of interest, I have considered all relevant responses. I have today published a summary of the responses and other evidence that I have considered. The document, "Your Region, Your Say", has been placed in the Library and made available in the Vote Office. In total, we estimate that at least 50,000 people were involved in the soundings exercise—a lot more than in the typical opinion poll often quoted in the House.
	More than 7,000 direct responses were from individuals. The rest came from organisations or individuals responding in a representative capacity—for example, through surveys or petitions. Although those responses represented the views of many hundreds of individuals, they were each recorded as a single response.
	It will not be a surprise to the House that levels of interest in a referendum vary between the different regions of England. In some regions interest was low. In the west midlands, only 16 per cent. of respondents said that that they wanted a referendum. In the east and south-east of England, about 35 per cent. said that they wanted a referendum, and in the south-west and the east midlands the figure was about 40 per cent. Taken together with other views, information and evidence, those figures show that there is insufficient evidence in the west midlands, the east of England, the south-east, the south-west and the east midlands to justify holding a referendum now. I am therefore not directing the boundary committee to undertake local government reviews in those regions.
	The picture is quite different in the three northern regions. In the north-east and the north-west, more than half of respondents wanted a referendum. In my own region, Yorkshire and Humberside, almost three quarters said yes—although I am aware that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) registered his minority "no" vote. In all three northern regions, there was significant and widespread interest in holding a referendum from the business community, trade unions, local authorities and the voluntary sector. Taking all that evidence together, I am satisfied that interest in a referendum is high in all three regions. I am therefore pleased to announce to the House that it is my intention to hold referendums at the first opportunity in the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber. I expect that opportunity to come in the autumn of 2004.
	Today, I directed the boundary committee for England to carry out a local government review in each of the three regions. Those reviews will cover the existing two-tier areas of Durham, Northumberland, Cheshire, Cumbria, Lancashire and North Yorkshire county councils. The boundary committee will recommend at least two options for structural change in relation to each area, and voters in those areas will be given a choice as to which unitary option they prefer. Reviews in the three northern regions will begin shortly. Copies of the guidance to the boundary committee have been placed in the Library.
	Building on the proposals in the regions White Paper, we intend to publish a draft Bill setting out the powers and functions for elected regional assemblies in those regions that want them. If people vote yes in the referendums, we could have the first elected assemblies up and running early in the next Parliament—which clearly will be under a Labour Government. That will be another significant step on the road to regional government for England. It will take forward the Government's commitment to develop a strong regional voice in all eight regions. The regional chambers, the regional development agencies and the Government offices will all continue to ensure that there is a distinctive regional voice from every region, irrespective of whether there is an elected regional assembly. This Government remain committed to a strong regional policy that will benefit the country as a whole.
	We are offering the people of the three northern regions an historic opportunity: an opportunity that we offered to the people of Scotland, Wales and London before them; an opportunity for the northern regions to choose how they are governed, to strengthen democracy and to reduce bureaucracy; an opportunity to gain a new political voice and to secure greater prosperity, for more growth, more jobs and more investment; and an opportunity for those regions that have the desire for change to determine their own future. Today's announcement is good for democracy, good for the English regions and good for the whole of the UK. I commend this statement to the House.

David Davis: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for making his statement and for giving me prior sight of it. I, for one, accept his apology for the leaked letter. I commend him for realising that a matter of such constitutional importance requires a Minister to come to the House to announce it. For once, perhaps, the Prime Minister should take a lesson from his deputy.
	The events of the past two weeks have shown just how much the Government believe in consulting before introducing major constitutional change. It was apparent with the euro, the European constitution and the strange events of last week. All those matters show a Government at odds with the people whom they govern. To date, they have held 34 referendums on a range of subjects, but how do they choose the issues on which to hold a referendum? Clearly, they do not do that on the basis of constitutional importance or what matters to the public. They choose on only one basis: when they believe that they can win. However, today, they may have got that judgment wrong.
	We believe that the Deputy Prime Minister has instigated referendums in the north-east, north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside that will deeply embarrass him and the Government. Such a measure will do little more than pour millions of pounds of taxpayers' cash down the drain as the Deputy Prime Minister blindly chases his obsession with what will undoubtedly become an expensive white elephant. Rather than a solution, it is a symptom of Labour's failure to deliver decent public services. It is a desperate attempt to create legitimacy for an idea for which there is no argument, advantage or appetite. As Lord Whitty said, elected regional government is not an issue
	"in the pubs and clubs"
	of the north.
	The Government received a dismal total of 8,000 replies nationally to their consultation on whether referendums were needed—surely even the Deputy Prime Minister could take the hint. That was after the Government extended the deadline for submitting replies from March to May because of lack of interest in the exercise. In March, they had received 5,500 replies—fewer than the number of people who voted for the Monster Raving Loony party at the last election. In May, the Deputy Prime Minister had received a mere 7,000 replies. However, when my office rang last week, we were told that 8,000 replies had now been received. It appears that the cut-off date for the replies has been extended yet again in a desperate attempt to stimulate interest. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that? Is it now Government policy to leave the polls open until they receive a result that they like? Eight thousand replies after three attempts from a population of 42 million is a pathetic figure. The Deputy Prime Minister's dream appears to put everyone else to sleep.
	Let us put the issue in context. The Daily Mail sells 2.4 million newspapers every day and has received well over 1 million votes for a referendum on the European constitution in only one attempt. The Deputy Prime Minister's sounding exercise had a derisorily low turnout, yet he has announced that he intends to plough ahead regardless, despite promises from the Minister for Local Government and the Regions that the Government
	"wouldn't feel bound to proceed if the turnout was that low."
	Let us consider the document. Is it right that, in Yorkshire and Humberside, only 833 people out of a population of 5 million wanted a referendum and got it? Is it correct that, in the north-east, more individuals were against than for a referendum, yet they still got one? Is it true that, in the north-west, all the county councils that replied opposed a referendum but still got one? What would have constituted a response that was too low? What is a minimum "yes" vote in a referendum that will legitimise an assembly?
	The people of my constituency in the north, like those around them, work hard, pay their taxes and expect a fair deal in return. Instead, the Government will waste their money on another pet project. Will the Deputy Prime Minister state precisely how much the Government intend to spend on promoting those ideas? Will he undertake to provide an equal amount to promote the other case in the referendum campaigns? Will he comment on the allegations that the north-west and north-east regional chambers have been using taxpayers' money illegally to promote an elected assembly and on other political campaigns? Will he detail the steps that he is prepared to take to ensure that such misuse of public funds does not continue during a referendum campaign?
	People do not have any idea what a regional assembly will mean for their locality. Many people support a regional assembly only because they believe that it will mean more money for their region. Yet the Minister for Local Government and the Regions stated:
	"Regional assemblies won't get preferential treatment. The funding will be the same as for those without them."
	Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that? Is the Minister of State right to say that regional assemblies will mean not one extra penny for the people of the north of England? Can the Deputy Prime Minister also guarantee that, before the first referendum is held, he will have not only published the Bill but taken it through Parliament, making it clear what the final powers of the regional assemblies will be?
	The Deputy Prime Minister tries hard to represent regional assemblies as a decentralising measure, yet recent polls conducted by the Local Government Chronicle and the Local Government Association show that more than three quarters of those in local government believe that regional assemblies would strip powers away from councils, which would get nothing significant in return from national Government. Are they right or wrong? The Government have still not satisfactorily answered the West Lothian question, yet today they have created a new constitutional problem—what we might call the North Yorkshire question. How will the Deputy Prime Minister stop the metropolitan majority in one part of a region dominating the interests of another part? For example, if a massive majority of the people of North Yorkshire vote against the plans for a regional assembly, will he still force them to join?
	I come now to the cost of the regional assemblies. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the Mayor of London is hitting council tax payers with bills five times larger than the Government estimated? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he estimates the extra cost to taxpayers in the regions will be as a result of the regional assemblies? He has sought to represent regional assemblies as a mechanism for encouraging economic growth, yet the Confederation of British Industry believes that they could actually damage regional economic growth, and the Institute of Directors says that they will only add another layer of bureaucracy. Are they right or wrong? The fact is that the assemblies will not bring extra money to the regions; they will only take extra money from local residents. At a time when residents and businesses want less tax and less bureaucracy, the assemblies will only bring about the opposite: more tax and more bureaucracy. At a time when the regions should be unleashing their potential, they could be held back by a monster of the Deputy Prime Minister's own making.
	Many of the people of the north of England will be surprised that the Government have now apparently placed regional assemblies at the top of their agenda, particularly at a time when people's real concerns lie with issues such as health, education and crime. The regional assemblies will not deliver one extra teacher, one extra nurse or one extra police officer: not one extra nurse in the north-west, when hospitals such as the Liverpool Women's hospital have seen the number of patients waiting for admission rise by more than 40 per cent; not one extra teacher in the north-east, when one in three 11-year-olds leave primary school in the area unable to read, write or count properly; and not one extra police officer in Yorkshire and Humberside, where robbery has risen by more than 40 per cent. in the last year alone. People want public service reform, not public sector proliferation.
	Regional assemblies are an answer in search of a question, a solution in search of a problem and a policy in search of someone to love it. This misuse of referendums is an attempt to give a false legitimacy to a fraudulent idea. The people of the north are yet again being asked to pay more for less. Just as the Prime Minister's attempt last week to pass off botched institutions to members of his Cabinet failed, this attempt to do the same in the north will also fail. This is no way to treat the people of the north of England. They deserve better; they deserve a fair deal. That is why we will fight the Deputy Prime Minister's proposals every inch of the way. They are a payback for politicians and a burden for the people, and when the people of the north are presented with the proposals, we are confident that they will give the Government the very same hand gesture that we have come to expect from the Deputy Prime Minister.

John Prescott: Pathetic! I think I prefer the quiet man. The right hon. Gentleman asks why we should do this. Let me make it clear: it was in our manifesto. I have been involved with this question, rightly or wrongly, for more than 20 years. We have debate after debate in which we decide things in our party. We then put the proposals in an election manifesto, and at the last two elections we made those commitments.
	As I understand it, we had overwhelming victories in those elections. These proposals were part of our promise, part of our agreement and part of our manifesto, and I am delighted to be here carrying out that promise.
	The right hon. Gentleman talks about promises and says that we have never put forward a referendum that we lost, but I am bound to say about entry to the Common Market that—unhappily at the time, as I opposed Britain's entry—we lost that one. However, we gave the people of this country the chance to make a decision on probably the most important constitutional issue facing Britain: whether we were to be a member of the Common Market. The Tories, when they were in government at that time, refused to have any referendum or consultation with the people. We gave the people that choice and they made it. They wanted to be part of Europe.
	A lot has happened since then and an awful lot of agreements were passed by the previous Administration—treaties that have affected the laws of this land—although there was never a referendum. In fact, referendums were refused by Governments of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member, so it is a bit hypocritical to come along here and lecture our party, which believes in consulting people. This is one of the processes of consultation—a referendum to give the people a choice—that we put in our manifesto.
	The arguments are not unique and I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been reading up on some old speeches—they are all the same. The Tories have said, "It costs too much, it is not legitimate, it is not the talk in the pubs, the people don't want it." He said all that today, but he said it about Scotland, he said it about Wales, he said it about London and he said it about the regional development agencies, but each time the Tories have come round to accepting it once it has been done. What hypocrisy!
	The right hon. Gentleman talks about the regional vote and asks what people will do in North Yorkshire. Has not North Yorkshire county council agreed to have a referendum? His own Tory council in North Yorkshire has said that it would like a referendum. Basically, it is the only Tory council in North Yorkshire and it wants a referendum.

Eric Pickles: There is only one.

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman means the county council, but others are involved. That is what the county council has to say.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) reels off all those people who are against the proposals, but I have some of the polls here—for example, a MORI poll of March 1999—and many people accept their authority when the results come out. One says that 52 per cent. wanted a referendum, and the BBC poll of 2002 said that 72 per cent. wanted one. Indeed, the County Councils Network—the very county councils that are opposing the proposals—set up a review in their own areas and 70 per cent. of the people said that they wanted a referendum. That is the county councils themselves: they paid for that review and more than 70 per cent. said that they want a referendum, so I am a little cautious when I hear the right hon. Gentleman talking about them.
	In all these referendums, Cheshire— [Interruption.] Well, it was part of the County Councils Network. [Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members do not like the results, but that is what happened. In all those areas, we have shown that people—trade unions, businesses, organisations and individuals—have called for a referendum. That has persuaded me to hold a referendum in the three northern areas that I have mentioned, and properly so.
	There is considerable evidence to be taken alongside that which I have placed before the House today. As for the abolition of the county councils and the point that the right hon. Gentleman made, he must be aware that the Tory Government abolished more county councils than the Labour Government, and did not even ask them. He knows that those county councils were abolished by the Tories, and I should remind the Opposition of them, as everyone on their Front Bench was involved in it. We find that Humberside, which is my own area, as well as Avon, Cleveland and Hereford and Worcester were all abolished by the previous Government without any consultation. The Greater London council was abolished without any consultation, so I will not take any of this hypocritical comment.
	Regarding whether there will be greater economic prosperity, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman to look at the regions and the economic data, whether for jobs or investment, for 1997 and compare them with those for now. He will see that there has been a remarkable turnaround in every one of those regions.
	The highest levels of employment and investment have occurred under the regional development agencies that we established during the first two years of a Labour Government.
	As for whether the CBI is right or wrong, it is wrong. It is also divided on the issue. As anyone in any of the northern regions will confirm, its members are not completely united; but they are not all against the proposal. Those who think that it is damaging are wrong.
	Finally, there was the claim that the Daily Mail was conducting a survey. Well, the Daily Mail—the Tory rag, the Tory propaganda paper—would not know truth if it stared it in the face. So, it is carrying out a poll and we will see what it says tomorrow. Of course, there are international observers from The Guardian who will report on whether the poll is legitimate.
	At the end of the day, we promised the people a referendum. We promised to give them a choice and allow them to make their decision. We are acting on that promise now.

Edward Davey: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister not just for his statement, but for his performance. I welcome the news that the three English regions can now choose between regional democracy and a regional quango state. This is a good day for democracy. Devolution supporters can now combine to campaign for a "yes" vote, and to kick-start a vital constitutional reform. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm, however, that his noble Friend Lord Falconer will not be in charge of regional devolution, despite the establishment of a Department for Constitutional Affairs?
	Does the Deputy Prime Minister realise that he could have given the "yes" campaign an even bigger boost had he proposed a far richer devolution than is proposed in the White Paper? Voters in the regions would be much more impressed by him if he could assure them that his regional devolution is about reducing Government control freakery, about cutting Whitehall down to size, and about voter power rather than ministerial power. Unfortunately, he cannot do that.
	Why is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to allow regions to hold the Environment Agency, the Highways Agency or the learning and skills councils to account? Why do the Government on the one hand support devolution, and on the other try to reduce the power of regions to negotiate at Brussels for regional support? Why do they support the so-called repatriating of structural funds, which will deny new regional assemblies a chance to win extra cash for their own communities?
	The Deputy Prime Minister failed to mention that an amendment tabled in the House of Lords won a second referendum on the question of local government reorganisation. It was, in fact, a Liberal Democrat amendment. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the second referendum not only gives voters more choice, but improves the chances of success for a "yes" vote?
	When does the Deputy Prime Minister expect to publish the draft Bill on powers for regional assemblies? Can he confirm that it will be published before the referendums?Today's statement marks an important if modest start on the road to regional devolution. While Liberal Democrats would drive a faster, more well-built model, we are glad that the Deputy Prime Minister has, on this occasion, overcome the obstacles placed in the way by the Prime Minister.

John Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response and, indeed, his support. I have always felt that we need a credible Bill and a proper consensus across Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I could agree on a good deal more about how the powers might be extended, but this will be a dynamic development, like those involving Scotland and Wales. Those who are elected will have a regional voice, which will give them more power over central Government. They will have to deal with, and negotiate with, central Government. I present the Bill knowing full well that those in the regions may expect more than it contains, but they will have a framework within which to negotiate and make their case.
	Although I readily accept that there is a legitimate argument in favour of much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, he should not underestimate the assemblies' ability to conduct hearings and hold regional bodies to account—including the Highways Agency and the Environment Agency.
	I think that rubbing two fingers together means money—although I had better keep off the subject of two fingers. We highlighted where the resources would come from in that matter and we await future events. That is the nature of political development between us.
	An amendment was mentioned, and I properly record that that was a Liberal amendment tabled in the House of Lords, and that it made the Bill much better. It was important to bring the Bill before the House in time to start the process, and I am grateful for the support that we received. The people will now have a greater choice in respect of what they believe should be the unitary choices within a county council area. They alone will take the decision. The Bill is the better for the amendment, and I readily agree that that came from the Liberals. As to the publication of the Bill, we hope to be able to publish it before the referendum.

Joyce Quin: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement and his long-standing commitment to transfer powers to people in the regions in order to give them a stronger voice. I urge him, particularly if this turns out to be a five-year Parliament, to examine the possibility of bringing in regional government before or around the time of the next election. Does he agree that if we are to build on people's loyalty towards their own region, it is important to conduct a concerted campaign across government to give people all the detailed information that they will need before casting their votes?

John Prescott: I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks and support. She has been an acknowledged campaigner in this sphere for many years, and I recall both of us campaigning together in support of regional government. I think that we are both pleased about the statement that I made today, and the debate will now start. I want to make it clear to people in regions that we assume that they want regional government, and that this will be the acid test. If they fail the test, frankly, this will not come about. I believe that it will, but the test lies in the choice that we are giving the people. As for whether the Bill can be introduced before the date of the next election, it is highly questionable when that event will come—we all know about the problems of timetables in Parliament. We will certainly do our utmost to conduct the referendum, and I am committing myself to doing so. The timetable seems a little short in view of the fact that I have to bring a Bill before the House, but we will do all that we can to make as much progress as possible.

Michael Jack: Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the referendum that he proposes will be binding on the Government? Will there be a minimum threshold—a minimum number of people who would have to take part in the referendum before it could be deemed valid?

John Prescott: All referendums, as is quite common, are advisory on these matters. That is clear from every referendum that has been held. As to whether there should be any limitations in respect of the number of people who vote, we have no intention to introduce any at this stage.

George Howarth: I, too, congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, even though I disagree with him, on bringing this policy so far. I know that he has expounded the virtues of regional government for many years, but does he accept that any close analysis of the consultation exercise would reveal that regional government is a preoccupation of the nomenklatura rather than the people—certainly the people in the north-west? Will he at least keep his mind open to the possibility of adding a third question to the ballot paper for the north-west—whether it would be better to have a Greater Merseyside authority, along the same lines as the Greater London Authority?

John Prescott: Personally, I do not agree with my hon. Friend's proposition. We agreed that regional government should cover all regions. There are very powerful city regions such as London and Merseyside—and we would all want to congratulate Liverpool on being European city of culture—but we do not intend to change along the lines that my hon. Friend suggested. There will be a regional body and all the people in the region will decide. It is for the people to decide; we are giving them a choice.

Angela Browning: The Deputy Prime Minister said that there was no case for an elected assembly in the south-west. How long is he prepared to allow the current quango—unelected, unaccountable and spending public money—to stay in place before he decides that there is no case for it at all?

John Prescott: In some areas of the south-west—Cornwall, for example—there is a strong demand for independence or regional government. However, insufficient evidence has been provided for me to justify holding a referendum there. As for the quango that the hon. Lady mentions, yes, we would like it to be democratically accountable. That is precisely what we are trying to achieve. If Conservative Members believe that regional bodies in the south are quangos, they have the opportunity not to join them.
	The Tories are the majority on some of the assemblies in the south-east, since the elections in which they began to increase their vote. Conservative Front Benchers say that they want nothing to do with the assemblies, but their people are flocking on to them, controlling them and chairing them.

Hilton Dawson: I offer my right hon. Friend my most sincere congratulations on his statement. Does he share my bemusement—and that of my constituents who are concerned about the crucial issues of planning, including housing development on green fields—at hearing the Tory spokesman declare that he does not want democracy? He does not want local people to have a say in the fundamentally important issues that affect their lives. This is an historic occasion. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be a role for the great historic cities of the north—York, Durham and Lancaster—in the forthcoming elected regional assemblies?

John Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. Under the elected regional governments, important regional cities such as York, Lancaster, and, indeed, Hull, will continue to play an important part in their regions. Those cities have their responsibilities and resources and the unitary authorities will get on with their jobs. The regional governments will add a regional dimension. The people in the regions have shown that they want regional government, but we will know the answers after the referendums. If the people want regional governments and we set them up, would the Tories get rid of them?

Peter Atkinson: Given the fact that fewer than 400 individuals in the north-east responded to the sounding exercise by the first deadline of 3 March, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what final percentage of the electorate of 1.9 million responded? That is a simple question.

John Prescott: I cannot do the quick calculation—[Interruption.] I can only give the answer to the question, whether the hon. Gentleman accepts it or not. The report is in the Library and the hon. Gentleman may make his own calculations. As I have tried to show when presenting the argument today, I am satisfied that, by any measure, an overwhelming case has been made for the three northern areas to hold a referendum.

Dari Taylor: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement this afternoon. Regional assemblies will certainly enliven and refresh our governing powers. They will ensure that voluntary bodies, commerce and business, as well as political parties, will be involved in the governance of their localities. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if we are to achieve that refreshment, a proportional voting system will be necessary?

John Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. The White Paper makes it clear that we wish to achieve proper representation. We recognise that we need a form of proportional representation—[Interruption.] I have spent most of my time opposing proportional representation, but I recognise that in some areas of the country the 25 or 30 members of the regional assembly would otherwise come overwhelmingly from one party. That would not be good for democracy or for the regions themselves, which will need consensus on regional matters. That is why we have adopted the system described in the White Paper.

Jon Trickett: Speaking as someone who represents the historic heart of Yorkshire, which—as everyone knows—is around Wakefield, I assure my right hon. Friend that he has the warm congratulations of the people whom I represent. We will return a majority when the referendum comes, because the people of Yorkshire fully understand that an over-centralised state—some 150 quangos still hold sway in Yorkshire—is not tolerable. We have had 100 years of a two-speed economy, in which the gross domestic product per head for knowledge-based industry is only 76 per cent. in Yorkshire and the Humber area, whereas in the south-east it is 130 per cent. That two-speed economy, and the over-centralised and unaccountable state, surely cannot be allowed to continue. I know that my right hon. Friend will campaign with me and many others for the election of the regional assembly.

John Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and congratulations. He made an important point about differences in gross domestic product between regions. There has been growing disparity over a decade or so, but just a small change—0.5 per cent.—would create millions of pounds that could be put to good use in a region. One purpose of the development of RDAs is to improve regional accountability, productivity and prosperity. The evidence is that improvement has happened in Scotland and Wales, and it is about time that the English regions caught up and had the same opportunities.
	I take my hon. Friend's point about quangos. No major dent has been made in the number of quangos established over a long time under the previous Administration—and I must concede that there have been a few set up during our time too. Governments tend to set up such bodies because there is no directly elected body to deal with matters regionally. We hope to change that, which will make a difference to the quangos largely created by the previous Administration.
	One further point needs to be made. The previous Administration rightly established the Government offices for the regions, seeking integration in the regions. It was proper for them to do that, and I cannot understand why the Tory party now opposes making those offices democratically accountable to the regions.

Nicholas Winterton: The Deputy Prime Minister has stressed the importance of consultation. When the consultation, which was extended twice, produced a derisory result, he fell back on what he described as his party's manifesto commitment. Is he aware that there will be not one penny extra for the regional governments that he intends to set up? There will be the same amount of money, but a top-slice will be taken off for those who want to get into the trough. There are too many such people. As I have already said to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, rural areas will lose out, and democracy has nothing at all to do with regional government.

John Prescott: As far as democracy is concerned, would it not be fair to let the people make a choice? Why does the hon. Gentleman assume—

Nicholas Winterton: What about the Convention?

John Prescott: Take a grip of yourself, sunshine.
	In fact, there is representative democracy, and we all support it. There is evidence of that. I cannot see why people should not make their own decisions, and referendums will give them that opportunity. That is what we are trying to do.
	As for the proposals being dismissed for the north-west, about 3,500 people participated, and concluded—

Nicholas Winterton: Out of 7 million!

John Prescott: I am just trying to—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is a Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall, and I expect better behaviour from him.

Nicholas Winterton: I am incensed!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Calm yourself.

John Prescott: I always feel better when I incense Tories.
	Basically, people can make a decision. At the end of the day, it is up to them, and that is right. As for dismissal of the influence and control that there will be over resources in the north-west, the budget there will be £730 million, and if the influence that there will be over other budgets is taken into account, the region will have a say in the spending of roughly £2.1 billion. That is an awful lot of money by any standards.

Sydney Chapman: The Deputy Prime Minister will know that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is currently before the House. Its provisions give sweeping new planning powers to regional authorities. In the interests of democracy, may I have his agreement to one simple proposition: will he assure us that those powers will not be given to the regional authorities unless and until they elect regional assemblies?

John Prescott: As the hon. Gentleman will know from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, the regional assemblies will have those powers. By the hon. Gentleman's own analysis, the elected regional assemblies will legitimately be able to deal with planning. I cannot accept that other regions should be denied that possibility simply because they do not have an elected assembly. On regional spatial planning, the Bill will give a number of powers to the regional assemblies, and we think that correct.

Peter Mandelson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his welcome statement on behalf of my constituents and others in the north-east who simply want the right to vote either way, which is an opportunity that the Conservative party would deny them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the aim of devolution is not to replicate the role of local authorities at regional level, but to create a genuine strategic role for the regions? Does he further agree that the system to be created will not be narrowly party political, but will be inclusive of all regional partners, including the business and voluntary sectors?

John Prescott: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. There is no doubt about the regional dimension, and I certainly agree that the people should be given the choice. That seems to be the difference between us and the Opposition: we will give the people the chance to make a choice, while the Opposition would deny people that choice, as they did for Scotland, Wales and London, only agreeing about it afterwards. However, we have to go through this process because that, I assume, is how they play opposition.
	On the involvement of other stakeholders, my right hon. Friend will be aware that the White Paper proposes a civic forum, such as those in Scotland and Wales, which would mean that many more people, other than elected members, would be involved in making decisions. The White Paper proposal would mean that the assembly was a more strategic body, which allowed many more people to make decisions about their region.

David Curry: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that declaration of the results of a referendum will take place at constituency or local government level, so that we may differentiate between the turnout and the vote in each part of the region, and if North Yorkshire's vote is significantly less, or different from, that in the rest of the region, we shall know and draw our own conclusions? Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he so badly misled the House when describing the powers of the assemblies? In his statement, he said that they would have powers over economic development, jobs, investment, transport, planning, housing, culture, arts and sport. He knows that his document talks about the vaguest of strategic powers. If the powers are real, why can a wholly unaccountable body of between 25 and 35 people, partly elected through proportional representation, be held to be doing the job?

John Prescott: No more than the regional governments who make those decisions now. We just want to make the assemblies democratically accountable, and I am doing that against a great deal of opposition. It is the Government who are asking for greater democratic accountability; we hope that that will come to every English region, but we have accepted that the regions must make that decision. We have to recognise that some regional assemblies may be non-elected while others are elected. We do not want to disadvantage non-elected regional assemblies, so we need to find a careful balance; they will not all be the same because the powers of a directly elected accountable body have to be greater. We shall deal with that when we come to the legislation.
	As for elections, we shall be talking to the Electoral Commission about some of the proposals, and will bear the right hon. Gentleman's comments in mind. If he wants to write to me with his recommendations, I am prepared to consider them. We have not yet started our discussions with either the Electoral Commission or the boundary committee; I had to make my statement to the House before I could begin that process.

Eric Martlew: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision, I should have welcomed it much more if Cumbria had been with the north-east. However, that is not the reality at present.
	The effect of a yes vote will be to reorganise local government. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the boundary committee will be able to look beyond county council boundaries to form the new unitary authorities?

John Prescott: Because of my years of dealing with regional matters, I am well aware that there is great contention about whether Cumbria should be in the north-east or the north-west, so I tread carefully when drawing conclusions about that. As my hon. Friend rightly said, it has been decided that it should now be within the north-west regional area.
	I have been asked whether county boundaries would stay the same when considering electoral areas. The areas do not have to be defined by the county boundaries. We want to achieve a proper balance between the rural and urban areas, and the committee will take that into account. I shall give the committee guidance notes—I think that they are available in the Library—which confirm what I have said to my right hon. Friend.

Henry Bellingham: The people of Norfolk will be relieved that, for the time being, a referendum will not be foisted on them. How long will that decision remain in place, however, and what does "for the time being" mean? Can we now scrap the unloved regional development agency? The Deputy Prime Minister is obviously aware that people in Norfolk greatly value the work done by the local county council and parish councils, so why does he use every opportunity to undermine county and parish councils?

John Prescott: That flies in the face of the Conservative Government's activities some years ago. They scrapped county councils. I have not scrapped one yet, and all that I propose to do is to allow people to decide whether they want to keep their county councils, or whether they prefer to have regional government in a unitary structure, so that we have two-tier government, not three-tier government. I do not know whether people in Norfolk want that, but they are not faced with that position at present. I do not readily accept for a moment that people in Norfolk want to abolish the RDAs. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman campaign on that at the next election; I suspect that he did not have anything about it in his manifesto. I believe that, like every other part of the United Kingdom, the eastern region wants the RDAs.

Neil Turner: I warmly welcome the statement, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on it. May I remind him that part of the proposal will involve reorganising local government, and that the existing local government work force will have concerns about that reorganisation? Safeguards for the work force have been included in previous reorganisations. Can he confirm whether those safeguards will exist when the new changes take place?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. Not only the work force, but others, will be very much affected by the changes when we embark on the referendums, and if they lead to a positive yes for regional government. That will involve considerable changes, particularly in the local structure, and my hon. Friend can be assured that we will give every consideration to the concerns that arise.

Stephen O'Brien: During the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, he used the following sentence to justify a referendum in the north-west: in the north-east and north-west, more than half of all respondents wanted a referendum. Will he confirm that he aggregated the figures for the two regions to produce that result, and that he missed out the word "each" in front of the north-east and the north-west? Will he give, from his file, the breakdown of figures for those who support and those who are against referendums for Cumbria, Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Cheshire? Will he confirm that the majority in Cheshire are absolutely against a referendum, and against regional government in the north-west?

John Prescott: I think that the document is available, and the hon. Gentleman can check the validity of my answers. Of course there was a majority in the north-west. The figure was not aggregated in that sense. I have the figures before me at the moment, and they show that more than 50 per cent. of those in the north-west agreed that they should have a referendum. [Interruption.] No, the figures are right. They are aggregated for the region itself. It is true that a vigorous campaign was conducted in Cheshire, but, as I see from the county council network that I referred to, even the people in those areas wanted to have a referendum. We have conducted this on a regional basis, and I have given the judgment to the House. How different groups in a region voted can be seen in the report, and overall it justifies my decision to hold a referendum.

Ashok Kumar: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. He has had a lifelong commitment to regional government, and this is a great day for all of us, certainly for Labour Members. However, may I tell him that if regional government is to succeed, the two tiers of local authority have to work and campaign together for a speedy resolution? I have bitter memories of what happened in the 1990s, when county and district councils clashed with one another and there was fighting left, right and centre. Will he instruct local authorities to work together and co-operate for the greater good?

John Prescott: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions advises me that he has written today to urge councils to do that—and I say, "Good luck," because we all know the difficulties of telling individuals with strongly held views about these matters what they should do. I hope that they will have respect for one another's arguments. The yes campaigns and the no campaigns will cut across political parties—I am sure that they have done so already—and moneys can be available through political funding, although limitations are placed on that. We will now start consulting on that, and I will keep the House informed about how such things can be achieved. I hope that the issues will be debated with good humour, because the decisions are worth taking.

Anne McIntosh: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that the population of North Yorkshire accounts for 11 per cent. of the total region of Yorkshire and the Humber. In the event that the people of North Yorkshire vote to keep the county council and the district, and against a regional Parliament, will their views as expressed in the referendum be respected?

John Prescott: The results will be determined in the regions, but, as I have already said, North Yorkshire council has asked for the referendum.

Colin Challen: From the perspective of a Member representing Leeds, which is the economic and enterprise capital of Yorkshire and the Humber—if not of the north—I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. What hangs the three areas together is that they have the highest levels of deprivation in England, which, I suspect, is why there is such a high demand for more powers for the regions. I will argue the case in the campaign for a yes vote, on the grounds that if we have regional assemblies we will have a greater say in getting resources from Government. Does my right hon. Friend approve of that line?

John Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. As for his last comment, I have always believed strongly that the Government of this country is too centralised, and that the regions have not had sufficient powers in such matters. If regions can get together, they form a tremendous countervailing power to decisions made by central Government. Why should that not happen? All too often, regions have no influence in some of those decisions, and I believe that elected authorities of this kind will have that effect. I note what my hon. Friend says about his approach during the campaign, and I note further his bid, which is the first that I have heard since my announcement, for Leeds—a powerful and prosperous city in my area of Yorkshire—to be the centre not only of Yorkshire but of the north. I leave him to argue that out with his colleagues.

Patrick McLoughlin: I have had more in common with Derbyshire county council since this Government were elected than I ever did when I sat on the Government Benches. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell me what will be the impact of his announcement on the Peak District national park, which has parts of four regions within its borders: the east midlands, the west midlands, the north-west and Yorkshire? Today he has announced referendums in some parts of it but not in other parts. What impact will that have on the national park?

John Prescott: To be honest, I do not fully know what will be the effect of that. Clearly, some of the regional areas cross boundaries—in the Thames gateway area, three or four regional development agencies are actively involved, and they come together, co-operate and make decisions. The referendums will be conducted within the boundaries that exist. If there is to be a vote in one region, that will be the case regardless of whether the dale extends into another region. I am afraid that I cannot offer any further comfort about what will be the consequences. I do not think that the impact will be great, but the main consequence will be that the people of the area make a choice.

David Borrow: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I am particularly pleased that he has ignored the comments of the county councils in the north-west, which, to a certain extent, speak with a vested interest because of the element of conservatism in local government that is always resistant to change. On my real question, much discussion took place during the passage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill about the White Paper and the terms of it that did not form part of the legislation. That White Paper will inform part of the Act that will set up the regional assemblies. We have not yet had the opportunity to debate the fine detail of the White Paper, and much criticism has been made of many of its provisions. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that once the people of the north-west have voted for a regional assembly, there will be an opportunity for the House to decide exactly what will be the terms and powers of that regional assembly?

John Prescott: The obvious point is that the Bill will come through this House, and the agreement of the House will be necessary before we can proceed with it. I hope, however, that there will be an opportunity to discuss some of the draft Bill before the referendum, for which a number of Members have asked, and which we will do our best to provide. Ultimately, however, none of the proposals can be effected without the permission of the House and discussion by Members of the House.

George Osborne: This morning on the radio, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said that if the turnout was derisory in one of the referendums, the plans would not go ahead. Given that in the north-west there was a turnout of 0.0005 per cent. in the soundings exercise, which the Deputy Prime Minister describes as a high level of interest, what is his definition of derisory? [Interruption.]

John Prescott: I think that somebody said that it would be two Tory MPs in the Chamber. Members will recognise that if there is a derisory turnout of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is talking about—zero, zero, zero something—it would be difficult to say that that represented the will of the people. I do not think that that will happen, but we will have to make a judgment on the basis of the propositions that are put to us, and how many participated in the vote. Clearly, putting a figure on that at the moment would be influential, but we do not propose to do so. I believe, however, that many people will take part in the vote. They want the vote, as we found in the consultation exercise, and I have no doubt that an awful lot of people will vote.

Stephen Hepburn: If regional government becomes a reality in the north, will the Deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that no powers will be transferred to it from existing metropolitan authorities?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend must be aware, if he considers the current housing strategy, that in some cases we are transferring powers—from counties, for example. We have to make a judgment and the Bill will contain exact provisions for what we will do, so I ask him to wait for that.

Points of Order

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Friday, I raised with Madam Deputy Speaker the Government's extraordinary behaviour on Thursday and the way in which the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor was announced. Madam Deputy Speaker was very kind and said that she understood the concern in the House, which was fairly widespread. In view of the fact that there is a statement in the House of Lords today, I had hoped that the new Leader of the House would make a statement today to explain precisely the implications of the decisions and what the new Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland—if there are such creatures—are to do. Will you, Mr. Speaker, make inquiries on behalf of Back Benchers of all parties to find out whether the Government will send a Minister to tell us precisely what they are seeking to do?

Graham Allen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall reply to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), which might save the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) from raising his concerns.
	I thank the hon. Member for South Staffordshire for giving me warning of his point of order. The statement in the other place is about the chairing of proceedings in the other place and no other matter. I share his concerns and I have been in touch with Downing street to ask that a statement be made. The Prime Minister has agreed to that and a statement will be made on Wednesday. I am sure that that will help the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.

Graham Allen: You have exactly answered the points that I was going to make, Mr. Speaker.

Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind that we will get a statement from the Prime Minister, he might talk about what is happening regarding the Lord Chancellor. However, there is a matter of more immediate urgency for the House and hon. Members. We now have a Secretary of State for Transport and a Secretary of State for Scotland in the same person. We have a Leader of the House and a Secretary of State for Wales in the same person. When we table questions to the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Transport, may we also table questions on their responsibilities as Leader of the House and Secretary of State for Scotland, or will they be two different people when they come before the House to answer those questions? Will they wear a form of identification to let us know the capacity in which questions are being answered—as the Secretary of State for Wales or the Leader of the House, for example? Perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales could wear a daffodil and the Secretary of State for Scotland could put a thistle in his jacket so that there could be proper identification of their roles and responsibilities at any time because, obviously, the public do not know and we will not know.

Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is often no need to wear a thistle or any other emblem; the accent usually helps. Being familiar with Scottish questions, he knows that there is always a different slot for Scottish questions and Transport questions. I think that that practice will continue.
	As I said, I know of the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition and members of the shadow Cabinet. I have expressed those concerns to the Prime Minister and I hope that he will be able to answer such questions when he makes his statement on Wednesday.

Nicholas Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the exceptional constitutional impertinence of the Prime Minister last week and the track record of incompetence that the Government have shown in all matters relating to constitutional reform, will you ensure that the Prime Minister is aware that when he comes to the House on Wednesday, he should expect to answer all questions relating to whether he consulted all those that his constitutional duties require?

Mr. Speaker: I feel that the hon. Gentleman's point will be on the record.

Anne McIntosh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) is urgent. We have Transport questions tomorrow. Transport is devolved for certain issues but not for others. We may want to question the Secretary of State for Scotland on Scottish planning matters that relate to airport policy. However, tomorrow the Secretary of State for Transport—the very same person—is appearing presumably to answer questions on transport. Will it be in order for him to answer the full remit of questions that fall within the same person's brief?

Mr. Speaker: The cares of tomorrow are for another day. We worry about them then.

Crispin Blunt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the second time that the House has had to wait for the Prime Minister's convenience for him to make a statement to the House. Following the G8 summit and the shambles of last week, we have to wait until there is a happy coincidence between when he has to make a statement and when he has to be here to answer Prime Minister's questions. Is it really a satisfactory state of affairs for this House of Commons to have to wait for Ministers to make a statement? Should they not come here at the first opportunity?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman trusts me on this matter, it is my understanding that Wednesday is the first opportunity for the statement. There are matters to which the Prime Minister must attend tomorrow. I shall not go into those, but they are genuine and concern long-standing engagements. I made the request because I wanted the House to have a statement from the Prime Minister, and it will be on Wednesday.

John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was the source first of stupefaction and then of some merriment when early on in his statement the Deputy Prime Minister advised the House that the Government were completing the process of House of Lords reform. Does he know something that we do not, or are you, Mr. Speaker, privy to an imminent announcement on this important matter of which others are so far ignorant?

Mr. Speaker: That is a possibility, but it is not for me to worry about.

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to you for intervening this morning. Can you assure the House that you will allow questions to the Prime Minister on the wide-ranging statement to run for a fairly long time on Wednesday?

Mr. Speaker: If the next motion is agreed to, it will be for the Chairman of Ways and Means to decide, and he will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the House is extremely grateful to you for telling us that you made that approach to the Prime Minister. In the past, of course, Speakers have been rather reluctant to talk about their exchanges with the Prime Minister, but clearly, from time to time, you are minded to approach the Prime Minister on behalf of the House. That being so, would it be proper for us as Back Benchers on occasion to approach you in order that you might approach the Prime Minister on our collective behalf?

Mr. Speaker: I am always very approachable.

Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I apologise to you and the House for my somewhat exuberant behaviour a little earlier? I think, as you saw, I was very exercised by the matter raised by the Deputy Prime Minister. I do apologise.

Mr. Speaker: That is understandable.

Speaker's Absence

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the Speaker have leave of absence on Wednesday 18th June to receive the honorary degree of Doctor of the University of Glasgow.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Eric Forth: On the face of it, the motion may seem to be a routine matter but, happily, such items occur so rarely that it is worth the House pausing for a moment to consider its full implications. The motion covers the Speaker's role, the arrangements that can be made for the Speaker's absence and, as in this case, the timing and duration of that absence.

Douglas Hogg: Before my right hon. Friend goes on, I point out another consideration: our desire that the Speaker should not be away too long.

Eric Forth: I hope to touch on that later in my remarks, if my right hon. and learned Friend will permit me.
	When I saw the resolution, what attracted my attention immediately was the reference to the university of Glasgow. On this occasion, and I do not often have the pleasure of saying this in the House, I speak as a Glaswegian and as an alumnus of the university of Glasgow. It therefore gives me double pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to see that you are being honoured on Wednesday 18 June by my alma mater. I glanced at your entry in "Who's Who", just to check your Glaswegian credentials, not that they were ever in any doubt.
	You went, Mr. Speaker, to St. Patrick's boys school in Glasgow, which is not, sadly, the school that I went to, although it is not a million miles away. You then served as an AUEW shop steward at Rolls-Royce in Hillington. That is not Hillingdon, which is of course part of London, but Hillington, which is also known to me. You then had a distinguished career in this House, including a 10-year spell as the Chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee. Before that, of course, you had the honour of being a councillor in the Balornock ward in Glasgow from 1974 to 1979.
	I say all that because it relates directly to the motion, referring as it does to the honour that the university of Glasgow will do you on Wednesday 18 June. Lest anyone had any doubt about the reason for your requesting leave of absence from the House, we are already beginning to see the kernel of the connections, which you personify, between the House and the great city of Glasgow. I hope that none of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be in any doubt as to the honour not only that Glasgow does us but that you, as our Speaker, do the university. This is a happy coincidence and a two-way process of respect being shown by the university and city of Glasgow.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I yield to no one in my admiration for the excellence of the academic institution of Glasgow university, notwithstanding the fact that my right hon. Friend happens to be a graduate of it. Does he agree, however, that thoroughly worthy though the honour is, and timely though its conferral in the course of your speakership, Mr. Speaker, might be, it is a trifle inconsiderate, not to say maladroit, of the university to hold the ceremony on the occasion of Prime Minister's questions, which might, as a result, be slightly less orderly than it otherwise would be?

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend, as ever, anticipates a later part of my analysis, but I do not want to rush into that. I think that he would be disappointed if I did not stick to at least some coherence in my speech. I do not want to leap about because although my hon. Friend would be able to follow my logic without any effort, it might cause some Labours Members to struggle a bit.
	Having glanced on the Glaswegian aspect of the motion, I am struck by the fact that the House must pause for a moment to consider—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to leave the Chair; I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am very touched by his remarks, but when I was at Rolls-Royce in Hillington, I only had to ask the foreman for a day off. [Laughter.]

Eric Forth: I thought that we should then go on to consider, because it is relevant to the motion, the great responsibilities placed on the Speaker. I shall then risk, and it is a risk, touching on the delicate relationship between the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, including yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Crispin Blunt: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the Glasgow connection, has it not crossed his mind that he is not going up to Glasgow on Wednesday because of his former membership of the Communist party? Will he confirm that, although his background is similar, Mr. Speaker does not share that in common with my right hon. Friend?

Eric Forth: Mr. Speaker and I share many things in our background, including the fact that we were both raised in tenement buildings in Glasgow. I think that I am also right that Mr. Speaker's father and mine were both members of the Merchant Navy. We therefore have many things in common, but although I indeed stood as a Communist candidate in my school days, I suspect that Mr. Speaker had a much more respectable youth, which is probably why he is where he is, and I am where I am.

Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the doctorate to be conferred on Mr. Speaker by the university of Glasgow is a great deal more respectable than the doctorate in English that our late, lamented colleague, Sir Frederic Bennett, received from the university of Istanbul? Is Mr. Speaker's degree not a more appropriate mark of affection and esteem for the House?

Eric Forth: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not believe that the scope of the motion allows us to discuss the general question of the conferment of degrees on Members of the House.

Eric Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have tried to focus, as you know, very much on the Glaswegian aspects of the motion.

Andrew Mitchell: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the conferment of degrees in Glasgow, is he aware that this Wednesday at the same time as Mr. Speaker is honoured in Glasgow, a similar honour will be conferred on Mr. Gus O'Donnell, the spin doctor for the last Conservative Government before 1997?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am assured that that lies entirely outside the scope of this matter.

Eric Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Patrick Cormack: As Wednesday is Waterloo day, is Mr. Speaker to be escorted by a guard of honour from Scottish regiments?

Eric Forth: I am sure that it would greatly help the House if we had further particulars of the ceremony in which Mr. Speaker will participate. However, perhaps other colleagues can help because, sadly, I have not had time to research the nature of the ceremony or its appropriateness.

Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend will know that the former Lord Chancellor attended the university of Glasgow, so perhaps Mr. Speaker may wish to ask him whether he would like to go to Glasgow too so that he can get an honorary degree as a small consolation for being peremptorily discharged.

Eric Forth: Would that I had influence on such matters. Sadly, I have not been approached by my alma mater, but I am delighted that Mr. Speaker has. Whether the former Lord Chancellor deserves any recognition by his alma mater is entirely a matter of judgment. My right hon. and learned Friend has described it as a compensatory gesture, but that is further than I would like to go.

David Cameron: Has my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) not hit the nail on the head, and pointed to the dangers of Mr. Speaker going away, given that the Lord Chancellor, who performs the duties of Speaker in the other place, was peremptorily dismissed? Is it not a risk for anyone occupying a post more than several hundred years old to leave Westminster as they may be labelled a member of the forces of conservatism and treated in a similar fashion? Would not Mr. Speaker be better advised to stay at home?

Eric Forth: I suspect that my hon. Friend has trailed the speech that he wants to make. There is a legitimate analysis to be made of Mr. Speaker's request, given the statement being made as we speak in another place. We may want to look at the risk that he runs in any prolonged or even brief absence from the House, given the Government's mood about Officers presiding over parliamentary Chambers. However, that is a matter for my hon. Friend, not me.

John Redwood: Did my right hon. Friend not notice that Mr. Speaker seemed very relaxed when this matter came up for debate? Should we not have a fount of good will towards Mr. Speaker on this of all days, as he has stood up for the rights and liberties of this House and insisted on a statement from the Prime Minister? Will my right hon. Friend take that into account when thinking about requests for leave of absence?

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I will touch on that later in my remarks, but just to give a hint of the argument that I might want to employ, it is the absence of Mr. Speaker on Wednesday 18 June that might cause us some concern. He made a magnificent gesture today in defending the rights of the House and effectively summoning the Prime Minister, and we may not have that at our disposal on Wednesday.
	Were there to be by Wednesday a continuation of the undoubted constitutional crisis that we are now suffering, the burden might fall on your shoulders, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to drag you into this unnecessarily, but it may be unavoidable to touch on your role, because during Mr. Speaker's absence you will in almost every sense of the word be an able substitute for him. I shall return to that later.

Julian Brazier: On the way into the Palace of Westminster there is the mural of Sir Thomas More as a young Speaker defying the King's man in the demand for money without debate, so there is a precedent going back a long way for denying the Lord Chancellor, who was then the Head of the King's Government too. Given the fact that the Lord Chancellor has been threatened, as others mentioned, and that, as my right hon. Friend said, something of a constitutional precedent has been set by the Speaker demanding that the Prime Minister come to the House, is it not a good occasion to reflect that we need the Speaker here, and to consider whether in future there may be occasions when the House might ask the Speaker not to leave the premises?

Eric Forth: That is a matter for judgment on each occasion, and the House will have to make its judgment because the motion—I think I am right in saying—as well as being debatable is votable, and it is possible for the House to vote not to give Mr. Speaker leave of absence, as the motion requests.
	I shall argue, if I am allowed to proceed—I have only got into my introductory remarks—that on this occasion we should give leave of absence to Mr. Speaker, not just because of the pride that we must all feel in the honour being done to him, and not just because of my personal involvement as a Glaswegian, but because on this occasion we might want to test the waters, as it were, to see whether we can manage without Mr. Speaker even for a day, and even for a day as important as Wednesday will be, as I hope to point out.

Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we would all be much more likely to agree that the Speaker should go away for a day if we got an assurance from those on the Government Front Bench that there will be no attempt to mount a coup against the Speaker in his absence, as there was against the Lord Chancellor?

Eric Forth: That would be helpful.
	At this point, it would be only courteous of me if I welcomed the new Deputy Leader of the House to his place. He is most welcome. I only regret that he did not seek to catch Mr. Speaker's eye at the beginning of the debate in order to set out the reasons for the motion. It is, of course, in the name of his right hon. Friend, that bi-cephalous man, the Secretary of State for Wales and Leader of the House, who sadly is not with us. His deputy, I am sure, would have ably moved the motion and, I hope, will equally ably reply to the debate. He might then be able to give my right hon. and learned Friend the assurance that he sought. I hope that he will.

John Bercow: I am grateful, once again, to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I am, as he knows, a person of generous heart and public spirit, but I am highly sceptical whether the case has yet been made for the Speaker to be absent for a day. It could be constitutionally perilous if that were to happen. In trying to assess the pros and cons of the argument, in which respect I know my right hon. Friend would wish to assist me, may I ask him the rather prosaic question whether the university of Glasgow has considered holding the important ceremony on a non-sitting day?

Eric Forth: That raises an interesting and relevant point, which is typical of my hon. Friend, concerning eminent and ancient institutions such as my alma mater, the university of Glasgow. Happily, it was founded in the 15th century, so one would have thought it had been around long enough to understand the nuances involved in inviting someone as eminent as Mr. Speaker, and I should add, as it is relevant to the answer that I am trying to give, that my degree is indeed in politics and economics.
	One would therefore have thought that the department of politics at the university might have advised it of the inadvisability of inviting Mr. Speaker to attend the ceremony while the House was sitting.

Henry Bellingham: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He has mentioned a very important point about the university of Glasgow—his alma mater. Does he know whether Wednesday's ceremony will be a special one-off event for Mr. Speaker or part of a wider jamboree to which other people have been invited to receive honorary degrees? If it is the latter, it would be difficult to cancel the event. However, if there is to be a unique, bespoke ceremony for Mr. Speaker, his argument that the university might show some flexibility could be more convincing.

Eric Forth: It certainly would not be a jamboree. That is certain, as the university of Glasgow does these things properly. However, my hon. Friend makes an important point. While this short debate is going on, one of my hon. Friends might seek further particulars from the university as to the nature of the ceremony itself. That would help to set in context what Mr. Speaker will be expected to do when he is in Glasgow and in whose company he may find himself when he is given the honour.

George Foulkes: It is, of course, technically possible for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to continue debating the motion in this so-called hilarious fashion until 10 pm, which would mean that proceedings on the Licensing Bill continued until 4.30 in the morning. While that sounds clever, does it really enhance the reputation and dignity of this House?

Eric Forth: I hope that idle Labour Members are not already thinking about when they can leave the building, although it sounds as if they might be doing so. This debate will continue for as long as we wish and while we remain in order, or indeed until the Government are unwise enough to seek a closure. That option is always available to them, although I would not advise that they take it on this occasion. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a matter that features on the Order Paper and is available for debate somehow need not or should not be debated, that would give the lie to the attitude of all too many Labour Members, as these days, on the Government Benches, they do not believe that this House should exercise its proper responsibilities in a proper way.

George Foulkes: Quite the reverse. I agree that we should exercise our responsibilities. We should also exercise our judgment and discretion.

Eric Forth: That is exactly what I am trying to do.

John Taylor: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend's alma mater understands the historical proprieties in these matters, and bearing in mind the analogy of the state opening, would he consider it appropriate to ask the university whether we may have a hostage pending Mr. Speaker's safe return?

Eric Forth: I am very happy to offer myself as that hostage on this occasion, as a graduate and alumnus.

Nicholas Soames: My right hon. Friend has been speculating about what may happen during the ceremony, and I hope that one of my hon. Friends will seek to contact the university to find out. However, does he agree that there is a distinct possibility that Mr. Speaker will be invited to make a speech in Latin? That is indeed a task of a high order for anyone. Does he agree that, on this particular occasion, it would be appropriate for the House to be informed about Mr. Speaker's exact duties while he is away from us?

Eric Forth: I think that I have already conceded that point. In my day—I graduated in 1966—a large part of such ceremonies was conducted in Latin, and my degree certificate is, appropriately, in Latin as well. Sadly, I am not now sufficiently in touch with the university to know whether it has undergone that ghastly modernisation process so beloved of the Government and their supporters and changed the proceedings from Latin to English.
	It would be useful to inquire of the university about that before we go much further.

Douglas Hogg: As regards the possibility that the Speaker will have to make a speech in Latin, would my right hon. Friend respectfully request a translation on behalf of the House, so that we know what he says?

Eric Forth: I am surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend would require a translation—I should have thought that he is fluent in most of the classical languages—but that is not an unreasonable request. I hope that it will have been taken into consideration, even at this early stage of the debate.
	I want briefly to consider the role of the Speaker to enable us to judge how far it might be compromised by his absence. I turned first to that source to which we always turn—namely, the Library. It has produced an excellent factsheet on Mr. Speaker, which says:
	"The direction and guidance the House receives from its . . . (Speaker) is central to the House's whole way of life."
	One could not put it better than that. It neatly sums up the centrality of the role of Mr. Speaker as far as the House is concerned, and gives us some cause for concern as to how on earth we will manage if he is to be absent even for the one day that is mentioned in the motion.
	"Erskine May", to which we all resort on these occasions, because it is our guide and our bible on such matters, says, on page 188:
	"The Speaker's functions fall into two main categories. On the one hand the Speaker is the spokesman or representative of the House in its relations with the Crown, the House of Lords and other authorities and persons outside Parliament."
	We should pause there for a moment, because that is a matter that is currently at the forefront of everybody's mind. The mention of
	"the Crown, the House of Lords and other authorities and persons outside Parliament"
	reminds us of the developments that are rapidly taking place, even as we speak, in another place. Given the rapidity with which events are unfolding, the question arises as to whether Mr. Speaker will be required to be here on the day after tomorrow to carry out the responsibilities adumbrated in "Erskine May". It goes on to say:
	"On the other hand the Speaker presides over the debates of the House of Commons and enforces the observance of all rules for preserving order in its proceedings."
	What we will have to judge—I shall return to this later—is how far the absence of the Speaker in any way compromises those very important responsibilities that are laid upon him.

Douglas Hogg: One of the Speaker's responsibilities is to safeguard the rights of Back Benchers. I think that my right hon. Friend will be the first to agree that this Government tramples on those rights. Is not that a reason why we should view the departure of the Speaker, albeit only for a day, with considerable concern?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman develops his argument too far, I should tell him—I suppose that I may have to declare an interest—that Standing Order 3(2) indicates that in the absence of the Speaker,
	"the Chairman of Ways and Means shall perform the duties and exercise the authority of the Speaker in relation to all proceedings of this House".

Eric Forth: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are hinting at delicate territory. I hope that we will not be forced to make any kind of judgment about whether we would regard the absence of the Speaker as being in any way detrimental to the House, given that you would then act wholly and fully in his place.
	I want to touch on one or two of the Speaker's other responsibilities. In relation to the Lords, "Erskine May" says, on page 189:
	"The chief function of the Speaker in relation to the House of Lords is to consider bills brought from that House and Lords amendments to Commons bills to see whether they infringe the financial privileges of the Commons".
	I am sure that you will confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as Chairman of Ways and Means you will exercise in all matters the full powers that Mr. Speaker would otherwise discharge. However, the House will want an assurance—perhaps it can come only from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even in the light of the Standing Order that you quoted—that there is no responsibility, role or power exercised by Mr. Speaker that you cannot exercise in his absence.
	We want that reassurance because there may be circumstances in which it could become relevant. I would welcome your guidance on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. In the absence of the Speaker, if that is approved by the House, the Chairman of Ways and Means has the full authority of the Speaker in all the matters that might be of concern to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he does not question the fact that a Chairman of Ways and Means would behave no less impartially than Mr. Speaker.

Eric Forth: Of course not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that we are greatly reassured by what you have said. It may even allow me to truncate my remarks, and you will, therefore, have been doubly helpful to the House.
	One of my hon. Friends took the trouble to look at one of those horrible website things and get some information, which is headed "The University of Glasgow". Under the title, "University of Glasgow confers honorary degrees", it states:
	"The University will confer honorary degrees on seven distinguished men and women at the annual Commemoration Day ceremony on Wednesday 18 June."
	It lists those who will receive honorary degrees. They include a Mr. Augustine Thomas O'Donnell, permanent secretary at Her Majesty's Treasury; Dr. Sheena Elizabeth McDonald, political journalist; and Keenan Smart, head of a natural history unit. Of course, it includes our Speaker,
	"the right hon. Michael Martin, Speaker of the House of Commons and MP for Glasgow Springburn."
	We can be reassured that our Speaker is in mixed but appropriate company.
	However, the website does not go into details about the nature of the ceremony and the answer to the question that has exercised one or two colleagues about the language in which at least part of it will be conducted. Perhaps we could request further particulars and revert to the matter later in our analysis.
	You have gone some way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, towards allaying any fears about the full power and discretion that you and your fellow Deputy Speakers might have in the absence of Mr. Speaker. I hope that any nervousness about his lack of availability on 18 June is rapidly being dispelled. However, there is another consideration. Let us consider the business for Wednesday 18 June. As one of my hon. Friends has already pointed out, Wednesday is now the day on which we have questions to the Prime Minister. However, this Wednesday, we also have questions to the Deputy Prime Minister. Questions will be asked to the two most senior members of the Administration on Wednesday.

Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend must not overlook the fact that Wednesday is not an usual day because the Prime Minister—as I understand it, at Mr. Speaker's request—will make a vital statement on the constitutional changes.

Eric Forth: Indeed, he will. Wednesday will not be an ordinary parliamentary day—if there is such a thing. I have always resisted the suggestion that there could be an ordinary parliamentary day. Every day in the House of Commons and in Parliament is an extraordinary day.

George Foulkes: The right hon. Gentleman borders on being disrespectful to the Deputy Speaker. I have been present on a previous Wednesday when the Deputy Speaker took the Chair and did so admirably. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the disgraceful slur that he puts on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Eric Forth: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman, in his seniority and maturity, remains so feisty. I welcome his participation in this little debate. I hope that he wants to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to give us his thoughts on the matters as the debate develops. After all, we are on the initial canter through the subject. I hope that there is much more to come.
	Wednesday 18 June is a critical day in the parliamentary timetable when the House can be unruly—or boisterous, to put it more neutrally.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that you will be able to handle matters with your usual aplomb, expertise and poise, but in the event that you were not available on Wednesday—you might be indisposed; who knows?—that burden would fall on one of the other Deputy Speakers who are not as experienced in these matters as you. That would be a challenge both to them and to the House, to which I am sure they would rise magnificently—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should be quite careful in the words that he is using. He is verging on an appraisal—or indeed, a criticism—of those whom the House has been good enough to choose as the occupants of the Chair. I am sure that he would not wish to do that.

Eric Forth: Of course not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Any perusal of Hansard will show that I had no such intention and that I was choosing my words pretty carefully. I accept what you have said, however, and I shall move on. I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion, because I want others to be able to participate, although it has been generously and helpfully pointed out that we have until 10 pm to complete this debate. There is therefore no need for it to be hurried or truncated in any way whatsoever. This matter can be properly dealt with, rather than being subject to any of the artificial restrictions of time to which we have become rather too used.

Bill Wiggin: It occurs to me that the level of excitement might reach such a pitch on Wednesday that the Speaker might not wish to be away. He has always been very courteous and polite to me, and has often called me to speak. He probably feels the same obligations to the good people of Glasgow who have so kindly invited him to be there. Perhaps he would rather be here but, far from wishing to cause offence, has duly accepted—or hopes to accept—the invitation to go and receive his award. Perhaps, given the importance of what the Prime Minister will have to say on Wednesday—considering the damage that has been done to our constitution and to the office of the Lord Chancellor—the Speaker would rather be here. I wonder what my right hon. Friend thinks about that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should say to the hon. Gentleman—and to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) before he is tempted to answer—that the Speaker is always prepared to submit himself to the judgment of the House.

Eric Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The only thing that I want to say to my hon. Friend is that I am sure that Mr. Speaker takes the view that this is an honour not just for him but for the House, and that we should gladly accept it as such. It is in that spirit that, having considered the matter somewhat carefully, I have reached the judgment that on this occasion the House should give Mr. Speaker leave of absence, as the motion requests, so that he can receive the honour being done by the university of Glasgow and so that we may, in our different ways, bask in the reflected glory and pay our respect to the university. It is in that spirit that I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be happy to approve the motion.

Douglas Hogg: This debate, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has rightly initiated, revolves around two themes. The first, which I wish to develop at a little length, is our respect for Mr. Speaker, and how glad we are that the university of Glasgow is paying this tribute to him. The second is our concern that he should not be away too long, partly because, in his absence, the Government Front Bench might begin to take liberties with the rights of Members, and partly because he might be the subject of a coup. The House will wish to consider those two points in the context of this motion.

Michael Fabricant: In the context of a coup, it might be argued that such a thing would not be possible because, as my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware, a Speaker can be elected only at the beginning of each Parliament. Is my right hon. and learned Friend similarly aware, however, that this is agreed through the Standing Orders of the House dated 22 March 2001—Standing Orders Nos. 1, 1A and 1B—which could be overturned if a motion to that effect were presented to the House on Wednesday morning?

Douglas Hogg: Indeed, I was aware of that, and I rather think that something similar is happening in the other place even as we speak. Last week, we were told that the post of Lord Chancellor had been abolished and that the noble and learned Lord Falconer was going to be something different, yet the following day there he was in wig and gown, sitting on the Woolsack. It was discovered, suddenly, that the post of Lord Chancellor could not be abolished.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is going well beyond the scope of the motion. Nothing can happen in this House during the Speaker's absence on Wednesday that cannot be taken care of under Standing Orders.

Douglas Hogg: I was indeed led astray by the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been a Member long enough to know when he might be tempted into being led astray. He should not do it.

Douglas Hogg: That is why I was apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recognised the fact that I should not have been led astray, and I was very contrite. I know you of old, and I know perfectly well that you like me to stand in sackcloth and ashes. I sinned and I apologised, although I was just a trifle surprised when you abused me for doing so. Well, I will overlook the matter on this occasion.
	If I may, I shall revert to the main thrust of my remarks, and there are two bits to it. The first is to caution the Speaker against being away too long—not for the technical reasons on which we have just been trespassing, but for the more general reason that in many important respects he has safeguarded the rights of Back Benchers. While I would not for a moment suggest that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues would not seek to do likewise—that is not the thrust of what I want to say—sometimes the authority of the Speaker as such is necessary to safeguard our rights. Therefore we do not want Mr. Speaker to be away from the House longer than need be.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the terms of the motion, in that the House has one question, and one question only, to decide: whether Mr. Speaker should be given leave of absence on the sitting day of 18 June.

Douglas Hogg: That is exactly why I am welcoming the fact that the motion provides for an absence of only one day. On subsequent occasions, such a motion might suggest that Mr. Speaker be absent on more than one day. I am speaking to the motion—namely, that he should be absent on only one day—and explaining why it is so important that he be absent for only one day. He has used the authority of the Speaker's Chair in a number of important respects to safeguard the rights of Back Bench.

George Osborne: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a good example of how Mr. Speaker has safeguarded the rights of Back Benchers is his asking the Prime Minister to come to the House on Wednesday to explain the reshuffle? That is a classic example of the role of the Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already had to tell the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that Standing Orders provide for there to be a substitute for the Speaker with all the same powers. It is to be hoped that they will be discharged in the same manner in defending the rights of Members of the House.

Douglas Hogg: I accept that of course, and I have no doubt that when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and indeed your colleagues, are in the Chair, you will not seek to do otherwise. As I ventured to say, however, this matter is rather like Secretaries of State: sometimes the authority of the office, not just the authority of the person, is needed to impress other powers in the land. There is no doubt, if I might respectfully say so, that the fact that the Speaker qua Speaker made the request to the Prime Minister had an impact on No. 10.
	I say that not in any way to belittle you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is a basic truth. That takes one, therefore, to a fundamental proposition: Mr. Speaker has, qua Speaker, done a number of things, in his personal capacity and with the authority of the Chair, to reinforce the rights of Back Benchers, which is why we do not want to see him gone for more than one day.
	I think that I will not in any way trespass on the patience of the House if I identify some things that Mr. Speaker has done to safeguard the powers and privileges of Members and say why, therefore, we do not want to spare him. The first involves the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). Mr. Speaker has, on occasion, impressed on Secretaries of State the importance of making all public statements on policy change to this House first, and not through leakage. His request to No. 10 today is a reflection of that.
	You may not have been in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although you will have heard that the Deputy Prime Minister apologised earlier today for the leak in the weekend press as regards his statement.
	That, I suggest, is one of the consequences of the action of the Speaker qua Speaker in deploring that habit. In that respect, the Speaker has been safeguarding our interests, rights and privileges.

John Bercow: Given that the decision to award Mr. Speaker an honorary doctorate constitutes both a testimony to his meteoric rise to his present post and a comment on his excellent custodianship of the role of Speaker, does my right hon. and learned Friend not think that if the university of Glasgow were made aware of the significant anxiety, at least among Conservative Members, about Mr. Speaker's prospective absence—which might be reflected in the negativing of the motion—the university would in all probability agree to rearrange the date? Might not that avenue be usefully explored?

Douglas Hogg: I do not think that the House would wish, in a cavalier fashion, to disappoint either the university or Mr. Speaker. It is clear that Mr. Speaker wishes to go to the university; otherwise we would not be debating the motion. I would not want to see Mr. Speaker disappointed, or the university disappointed. As we have been promised that Mr. Speaker will be away for only one day, I do not think I would adopt the course suggested by my hon. Friend.

Andrew Turner: Earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the Deputy Prime Minister's apology for a leak to the weekend press of the statement that he made earlier. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the announcement made at 6 pm on Thursday was in fact an announcement of a change in Government policy—of a new Government policy, indeed—and that, as such—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is well outside the scope of the motion.

Douglas Hogg: I take the hint, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not respond to my hon. Friend's question, as I think you would say that I was out of order. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me.

Michael Fabricant: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—whose question was, of course, in order—is there not a danger that if the university of Glasgow thought the House believed it would be wrong for the Speaker to be absent on that day, the award of the degree per se might be jeopardised? If the degree were not awarded, would that not be to the detriment not just of the Speaker but of the House? After all, the awarding of a doctorate is not only a great privilege for the Speaker; it reflects well on this place.

Douglas Hogg: I agree with that. I think it would be a great pity if the university cast the doctorate into question for any reason. Not only is it an honour to the Speaker, and, as my hon. Friend says, an honour to the House, in a sense; it also stresses the integrity of the United Kingdom. In many ways, the integrity of the United Kingdom, by which I mean its unity, has been put at risk by the Government's policies. It is therefore rather cheering to observe the university of Glasgow recognising that there is in Mr. Speaker a proper recipient for an honour, and thus demonstrating the integrity and oneness of this realm.
	I am afraid that I have been diverted, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you like me to keep strictly in order, so I shall do my best to return to the main themes that I had in mind. As you will recall, I was saying that the Speaker qua Speaker, exercising his personal authority and influence, has done much to safeguard the rights of Back Benchers. One thing that he has done—if you will forgive me for saying so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is more difficult for Deputy Speakers to do this—is grant emergency questions. Emergency questions, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is absolutely no difference between the responsibilities involved. If the Speaker is absent, the Chairman of Ways and Means exercises full responsibility and makes exactly the same judgments, based on the same criteria.

Douglas Hogg: I accept, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is no difference between the nominal powers of the Deputy Speaker and the Speaker. You will recall, though, from my point about what Mr. Speaker had done with regard to No. 10, that sometimes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now trying to make too much of one particular point. There are absolutely no grounds for supposing that any occupant of the Chair would have taken any different decision on the basis of the advice available. It is a false argument—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not remain in order by suggesting it—that there is any division to be drawn between the Speaker and anyone else appointed by the House in the Speaker's place.

Douglas Hogg: I would in no way formally quarrel with what you are saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, with your enormous experience of this place, you will know how the House prefers to see a Secretary of State rather than a Minister of State—and it applies even more in respect of an Under-Secretary—answering from the Dispatch Box. That is not to criticise the persons concerned, but to say that, for some purposes, the full authority of the office has to be deployed. Although it is perfectly true that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, possess all the nominal powers of Mr. Speaker, it remains the case that sometimes, however rarely, one needs the authority of the office as opposed to the formal powers of the function.

Henry Bellingham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, when an approach is made qua Speaker to No. 10 or to a Department, it is surely made from the Speaker's office and the office itself carries that authority? In that light, surely it does not matter too much whether the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker is in charge?

Douglas Hogg: That is the point that Mr. Deputy Speaker is putting to me, and I accept it. When I think back to my days as a Minister, I was conscious—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) would confirm it—that a request from the Secretary of State carried more weight than one from a Minister of State, even if the Minister of State in question happened to be my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal. It is sometimes necessary to deploy the full weight of the office.

Michael Fabricant: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend is not impugning the integrity of No. 10 Downing street! Surely he is not saying that it would need the weight of the Speaker, rather than the Deputy Speaker acting qua Speaker, to take a rational decision. Surely he is not saying that Downing street would be swayed by such an action.

Douglas Hogg: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I am indeed saying precisely that, and I know that he will be shocked. Although I make no express or implied criticism of Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker and colleagues, I cannot be so generous to No. 10. I ask myself the question whether No. 10 is likely to be more embarrassed by refusing a request from Speaker qua Speaker than it would be by refusing one from the Deputy Speaker. We can make our own judgments about that, but many will believe that the authority of the office adds to the force of the request.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Mr. Speaker has ensured that No. 10 did give a response in respect of the particular day on which the Speaker's absence was to be debated. It seems to me that the point has been proved. In seeking to split the hairs of such judgments as I have made, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should know that, if he is worried that the Deputy Speaker does not possess the full authority of the Speaker, I may be tempted to exercise my authority in the use of Standing Orders to demonstrate that I do indeed have the fullest powers.

Douglas Hogg: I fully recognise that when a Member is not in order, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, possess the full powers. That is why I hope that I have carefully remained in order. However, so that I do not trespass on your patience—I would not want to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I have several other points that need to be made.

Henry Bellingham: I do not wish to be pedantic, but does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that, in dealing with issues of grave urgency, Mr. Speaker himself is likely to telephone No. 10, or will discussions take place within the Speaker's Office? It was probably the Speaker's secretary who made the call, through the usual channels. It is the collective weight of the Speaker's office, including the Chairman of Ways and Means and the other Deputy Speakers, that adds the requisite weight in these circumstances.

Douglas Hogg: I do not wish to exhaust your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have a feeling that if I go into the detail of what happens in the Speaker's Office—I do not know, but I assume it is like a Secretary of State's office—you might say that I was trespassing too far. Indeed, your eyes seem to signal that that is the case. That being so, I am minded—if my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) will forgive me—to move on to my next point. I shall skirt over the subject with some caution, because it goes to the prolixity of Members. Mr. Speaker, in person, has made clear his desire to ensure that Government Front Benchers do not go on too long, especially in their response to questions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot accept that as a point that is relevant to this debate. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks back—as an assiduous attender of the Chamber—he will realise that he has heard such exhortations from all the occupants of the Chair. I do not accept that as an argument relevant to this debate.

Douglas Hogg: I was making a slightly different point, and it goes to the authority of the office. Mr. Speaker himself—as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be the first to acknowledge—has said to a number of Front Benchers, on both sides, "Too many questions and too many answers". That is a very good thing, too, and that is why we do not want Mr. Speaker to be away for too many days. He has put a curb on the mouths of Front Benchers on both sides, and that is a good thing, but it requires the weight of Mr. Speaker himself—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That depends entirely on the Standing Orders and the way in which the occupant of the Chair, whoever it is, interprets them. I do not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to pursue that line of argument.

John Gummer: rose—

Douglas Hogg: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend.

John Gummer: Perhaps I may assist you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my right hon. and learned Friend on that point. But a fortnight ago, I had occasion to intervene to ask whether it was acceptable to have a guillotine that was so tight that the Minister was not able to finish explaining her amendment before we voted. The occupant of the Chair was one of the Deputy Speakers, and I was happy to be assured that the Speaker—spoken of as the office itself—would take seriously the issue that had been raised. That is an indication in this instance. However, it is right to say that if the Speaker were known not to be present for a period of time, the office itself would be significantly diminished.

Douglas Hogg: That is true, because—and I mean no disrespect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the Chairman of Ways and Means and his colleagues are the deputies of Mr. Speaker, and we do not want him to be away from the House more than he must. That is not a criticism of the occupant of the Chair, but a recognition that Mr. Speaker, qua Mr. Speaker, adds something extra to the proceedings of the House. However, I realise that you do not wish me to go on further about the matter of prolixity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall turn to the matter of the choice of amendments.
	I was put in mind of the subject by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said about the guillotines. I shall explain the relevance in a moment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I must rule the right hon. and learned Gentleman out of order if he wishes to discuss the powers of selection. That cannot be relevant to the absence of Mr. Speaker. Once again, the Standing Orders tell us that the Chairman of Ways and Means or other Deputy Speakers have the full powers of selection. Indeed, they are exercised on many occasions.

Douglas Hogg: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would be the last person to challenge your ruling. I shall therefore move on.

John Bercow: Leaving aside the issues of deterring prolixity—on which subject we have been admirably reassured by your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and of the powers of selection, can I interest my right hon. and learned Friend in the relevance of the subject of the business on Wednesday, for it is to that day that the motion relates?
	Does he think it a matter of legitimate concern to Members that although we are not scheduled to have a vote on that day, there will be an important debate on the Floor of the House on the European Union? Given the constitutional significance of that debate, is it entirely seemly that it should take place on a day on which the Speaker is absent?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That point is absolutely irrelevant. The authority of the Chair is such that whoever is occupying it can cope with any eventuality of that kind.

Douglas Hogg: I defer, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to what you have just said, but I understand my hon. Friend's personal regret for the fact that Mr. Speaker will be away on Wednesday. My hon. Friend has a ten-minute Bill, and I know that he is anxious that Mr. Speaker should personally hear what he has to say on domestic violence. All speeches are, of course, addressed to the Chair.

John Bercow: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for making that point. He has been my generous and unpaid consultant in so doing, for he knows that my natural self-effacement and reticence prevented me from making any reference to that important point.

Douglas Hogg: That is why I felt compelled to make my remark. I know that my hon. Friend is a very modest man who would not wish to draw attention to himself.
	I shall turn to something slightly different, and to a point that is personal to the Speaker. Mr. Speaker represents a Scots constituency—Glasgow, Springburn. That, no doubt, is why he is to receive a doctorate, honoris causa, from the university of Glasgow. That gives Mr. Speaker a very special position in safeguarding the rights of English Members against oppression from Scottish Members.

Andrew Turner: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Douglas Hogg: May I develop my argument, then I shall of course give way?
	My point is becoming of particular importance now that a Secretary of State who represents a Scottish constituency has been put in charge of English health.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not get himself into the position of appearing to question the impartiality of the Speaker in his relationship to any Member of the House.

Douglas Hogg: I was not, indeed, doing that.

Eric Forth: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Douglas Hogg: I shall, but I must first give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner).

Andrew Turner: rose—

George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On five occasions that I have counted, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has said that he accepts your ruling, and has then gone on to challenge it in what he says. Since you are acting with all the powers of the Speaker, as you have told us on a number of occasions, is it not about time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had the courtesy and grace to accept your rulings properly?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is my responsibility to try to keep to order within the terms laid down by the Standing Orders. I am seeking to do that. I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will respect the judgments that I have made and that we will make progress.

Douglas Hogg: Indeed I will, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Had I not done so, I feel confident that you would have been the first to tell me. Whenever you have indicated that I was trespassing rather overmuch on your patience, I have moved on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a matter of trespassing on my patience, but of stepping over the bounds of the Standing Orders of the House. That is the only thing of which I am guardian. My personal considerations are totally outwith the scope of the debate.

Douglas Hogg: I am deferring to your rulings on what is in or out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whenever I may have strayed out of order, you have been kind enough to indicate in the most courteous manner that I have done so, and I have, I hope, moved on properly to another subject so as not to run, in any way, the risk of incurring your displeasure.

Andrew Turner: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. He has mentioned that the degree will be conferred at the university of Glasgow, which, as we know, is in Scotland, and which is therefore some considerable distance from this place. My concern is that the terms of the motion may be impaired, or even contravened, if, for example, there were to be serious travel problems for Mr. Speaker on his return from Glasgow to England on Wednesday, or even the following day. He may not be able to get back—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would have to get up a lot earlier in the morning to fool me on that point.

Douglas Hogg: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight had not occurred to me, although, knowing British railways, it should have done. In the Government wind-ups, it would be extremely helpful if we could be told that a manuscript amendment will be tabled to the motion, either today or to deal with the situation on Thursday, should it occur, to excuse Mr. Speaker for a further day against the possibility that rail strikes or other inauspicious circumstances may prevent his return on Thursday. That is an important point and I am ashamed to say that it had not occurred to me.

Eric Forth: I may be able to help my right hon. and learned Friend on the question that he posed a moment ago as to the provenance of the honour that the university is doing Mr. Speaker. From my memory of the document that I saw a few moments ago, which was furnished by one of my hon. Friends but is now, sadly, with Hansard for the greater accuracy of the record, I believe that the citation referred to Mr. Speaker both in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Commons and as Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Springburn. There was a duality to the citation, which honoured Mr. Speaker in both regards. I hope that is helpful.

Douglas Hogg: Indeed, and it makes it even more important that we do nothing to put at risk the granting of that honour, so I shall support the motion, my reservations notwithstanding.
	As I know that other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak, I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion simply by saying that the honour is both to the Speaker and also to the House. The House is pleased to see Mr. Speaker honoured in such a way, because he has done a lot to protect and preserve the rights of Back Benchers. It is a good thing that he is being honoured, yet at the same time we do not want to lose him for very long.

John Bercow: I am extraordinarily grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who has been generous in giving way. Given the importance of this place and of the speeches made in it as a means whereby one colleague can persuade and, occasionally, even convert another, will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, as a result both of the intellectual content of his speech and of his personal eloquence, I, a sceptic on the subject of the motion, am duly persuaded. There can be no greater tribute to the quality and power of my right hon. and learned Friend's mind and mouth.

Douglas Hogg: It goes without saying that I am deeply flattered by that observation. May I also express the hope that my hon. Friend will address the House, so that we can know in detail the reasons for his conversion?

George Osborne: I note in passing that my right hon. and learned Friend should be cautious of the conversions of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—my good friend.
	To return briefly to an issue touched on by my right hon. and learned Friend a few moments ago—the possibility that the Speaker may not make it back for Thursday—given that the House has new hours and that we sit earlier on Thursdays, and the likelihood that the Speaker may be attending a dinner or similar occasion held in his honour on Wednesday evening, will that not make him even more vulnerable to travel problems on his return to London?

Douglas Hogg: It certainly will, and I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench would like to deal with such points when they make their respective wind-ups.

Andrew Mitchell: I am not quite so persuaded as our hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), but the eloquence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has moved me considerably further towards support for the motion. He has been probing the extent of the likelihood that Mr. Speaker may not be able to return on the same day or indeed for the following sitting day. Has my right hon. and learned Friend given any thought to the possibility that, as a result of this honour and award from Glasgow, many other universities throughout the British isles will also want to honour our Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing a motion about the Speaker's absence on 18 June. Other occasions will be dealt with separately.

Douglas Hogg: That was entirely the point that I was about to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell): one can deal only with particular applications on their own merits. If there be another invitation for a particular day, the House will wish to discuss it, but now is not the time to do so, because that would be to stray out of order in a very serious manner.
	I have said that the House owes Mr. Speaker the recognition that he has fought for the rights of Back Benchers, which is a serious point. It is also the reason why we do not want to spare him for more than a day. The rights of Back Benchers are under constant pressure from the Government and we want Mr. Speaker here permanently to fight for our rights.

John Gummer: Has not my right hon. and learned Friend reached the position at which he can make that point and still be in order? The House chose Mr. Speaker, rather than any other possible candidate, because it saw him as being, of all people, the person most able in the circumstances to defend the rights of Back Benchers and, therefore, in that sense, the persona of the Speaker is separate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has sufficient experience of the House to know that he is trespassing on very dangerous ground indeed.

Douglas Hogg: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish to cut across your rulings, but the general point is that, sometimes, the authority of the office is necessary to carry the weight and influence that we require. I speak as a former Minister, conscious that the weight of the Secretary of State—rather than myself, as a Minister of State—was sometimes required. In the end, that is what I am saying: we do not want to spare Mr. Speaker from the House for more than one day, but we are pleased to do him honour.

Michael Fabricant: We have already heard the question, "Can a Deputy Speaker act qua Speaker?" and I think that the answer is a resounding yes. We have already heard the question, "Should Mr. Speaker be away for one day or more than one day?" and we have heard that that would be out of order. So I would like to pose a philosophical question: is it right that
	"the Speaker have leave of absence on Wednesday 18th June to receive the honorary degree of Doctor of the University of Glasgow"?
	I believe that it is right to grant such leave.
	My right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House quoted from an excellent journal, published by the Library, factsheet M2, but I also want to quote in pursuance of my argument that it is right that Mr. Speaker should be given that day off. I would argue that it is not a day off, because he is representing the House, as Speaker, as well as himself, as the Member of Parliament for a Glasgow constituency, in the university of Glasgow on that day.
	I should like to quote from a colourful journal that has parliamentary copyright. I believe that it is also published by the Library; I certainly obtained it from the Library. It talks about the Speaker in a very interesting and personal way that is directly relevant to the question of whether it is right that he should be given leave of absence on that day. It is important that I read this paragraph because it is true and all hon. Members should listen to these words:
	"In some ways the Speaker leads a rather solitary life."

Eric Forth: Ah.

Michael Fabricant: But it is true.
	It continues:
	"Though receiving plenty of visitors at the splendid Speaker's House inside the Palace of Westminster, on becoming Speaker he gives up some of the comradeship previously enjoyed as an ordinary MP. The Speaker accepts restrictions on his right to socialise informally with other MPs, and no longer has the comforting sense of belonging to a party team. The Speaker has to be seen, at all times, to be completely neutral when it comes to party politics."

George Osborne: rose—

Michael Fabricant: That is the nub, but, before I pursue that argument, I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

George Osborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as he is certainly informing the House by quoting from that interesting document. He says that the Speaker has to be neutral of party politics, which is, of course, the case. I presume that, if there is a Division on the motion, it will be a free vote. However, does my hon. Friend agree that it was a shame that one political party in the House—the Scottish National party—chose to stand against Mr. Speaker seeking re-election at the general election?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is completely outwith the scope of the motion.

Michael Fabricant: I will, quite rightly, not answer that question, but my hon. Friend is at least right to say that this is not a party political matter—perhaps this is in order—and it is interesting that, so far, no Government Member has chosen to speak in the debate, other than to intervene.

Douglas Hogg: Before my hon. Friend moves on to another point, may I caution him against putting too much emphasis on the solitary nature of the Speaker's office? We might find Mr. Speaker facing many invitations from people wishing to relieve his solitary state, which would not be to the advantage of the House.

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point, which is connected to some of the issues that he raised earlier, when he spoke about whether a precedent has been created. After all, the former Prime Minister, John Major, created many more universities out of polytechnics—with hindsight, we might argue about whether that was right—which provides so much more scope for offering honorary doctorates to the Speaker. That would be out of order, however, so I shall not pursue that line now.
	There is a further important point. Mr. Speaker stands in a long line of great Speakers. Some of them, of course, have met with violent ends. If I may be allowed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The answer to that is no. We are debating whether Mr. Speaker Martin may have leave of absence on Wednesday 18 June 2003.

Michael Fabricant: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) pointed out, Glasgow is in Scotland—he pointed out, too, that we are the United Kingdom—and given that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out that Glasgow is in the United Kingdom, the visit to Glasgow on Wednesday in some ways reinforces the integrity of the United Kingdom. Although I shall not read out the long list of Speakers who have been beheaded—as has happened many times—and killed in battle, we have to worry about the welfare and well-being of the Speaker when he is not in the House. That raises an important and serious point. Given the genuine esteem that many of us feel for the present Speaker, because he runs this House in a way that is not only firm in direction but relaxed, and he has created an atmosphere—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes too far down his eulogistic line, I assure him that Mr. Speaker will always treat with equity any applications from him to speak.

Michael Fabricant: I want to put it on the record, however, that I was not intending to curry favour for myself but to make the point that Mr. Speaker's lonely position is often exacerbated by unnecessary, cruel, hurtful and inaccurate press comments. We should therefore welcome the fact that he is being honoured in this way by the university of Glasgow.

Eric Forth: I reassure my hon. Friend, as he is clearly anxious about Mr. Speaker's safety and peace of mind on his visit to the university of Glasgow, that Mr. Speaker will be on his home territory, in the city of his birth and upbringing, which rightly has a great influence on him, and in that sense he will be going home. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore accept that we can be confident that Mr. Speaker will be looked after, cared for, loved and returned in one piece.

Michael Fabricant: I am reassured by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. In fact, it would also be interesting to know where the Leader of the House is for this important debate. Perhaps we can be told at some point why the Leader of the House is not present. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will make a detailed summing-up, and I hope that he will reassure me that adequate protection will be given to the Speaker at this particular time. We are well aware of the threats that exist to those in such a high-profile position in the United Kingdom.

Andrew Mitchell: I am surprised that my hon. Friend finds it necessary to ask where the Leader of the House is. Had he studied the press over the weekend, he would have discovered that he is only a part-time Leader of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a quite separate argument.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for the intervention from my new neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). I had not read that particular point in the press, but I still await an answer from the Deputy Leader of the House, who will perhaps be able to point out where the Leader of the House is, and what excuse he has for not being present for this important debate.

Andrew Turner: The Leader of the House is in a sense a servant of the House in exactly the same way as Mr. Speaker. Would not it be appropriate for the Leader of the House to seek the leave of the House to be absent on a day such as this—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should have learned from my last ruling.

Michael Fabricant: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you must forgive my hon. Friend, who is a new Member and not thoroughly apprised of all the procedures that exist in the House. I am sure, however, that the new Deputy Leader of the House will be more than capable of replying. It would, however, be interesting to know where the Leader of the House is today and what protection will be given to the Speaker in these difficult times while he is away from the Palace precincts.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend has returned to the point about the protection offered to the Speaker on his travels. He will be aware that another Member of the House, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, was recently robbed on a train going back to his constituency. Is he aware of any special laws in this country that protect the Speaker and that prevent citizens, or subjects, of this country from intervening in his travels from or, more particularly, to this place—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the hon. Gentleman started, I thought that he might have found a way of keeping in order, but he has spun out of control.

Michael Fabricant: Perhaps, again, the Deputy Leader of the House can answer that question in his long response.

Eric Forth: I understand why my hon. Friend is struggling a little on this issue as, sadly, the Deputy Leader of the House did not seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the outset of this debate. If he had done so, he would have done the House the courtesy of explaining why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and part-time Leader of the House was not here. Perhaps my hon. Friend would give way to the Deputy Leader of the House to allow him to do so?

Michael Fabricant: I would be happy to do so. Perhaps the reason that the Leader of the House is not here is that he is only part-time. Does the Deputy Leader of the House wish to intervene?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be careful. Were he to sit down, I might be tempted to think that he had finished his speech.

Michael Fabricant: I would not wish you to think that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for one moment.

Douglas Hogg: Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that the motion is in the name of the part-time Leader of the House, and in his name alone? In those circumstances, does he not agree that we should expect the part-time Leader of the House to be in his place?

Michael Fabricant: On that, I seek your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you are acting qua Speaker at the moment. Is it in order? It seems most unusual. Normally, on a motion, one would expect to see both the name of the Leader of the House and the Deputy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman might know that any Minister can move a motion of this sort on the Order Paper, and any Minister can speak for another Minister. If it would assist him, however, I can tell him that the Leader of the House is currently at an introductory meeting with Mr. Speaker.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been kind enough to indicate where the part-time Leader of the House is. Does that indicate that as a general rule Ministers who have put their names to a motion but are not able to be in the Chamber should write to inform the Chair of where they are? If that is the case, we will want to ask the occupant of the Chair where the absentees are as a matter of general practice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think not. I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman searches his memory about his own record on that matter, which might help to inform him of the procedures that Ministers follow on these occasions.

Andrew Mitchell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that the motion was tabled only relatively recently and that the Leader of the House must have known that he would be absent during the debate, would it not have been a courtesy to the House if the Deputy Leader of the House's name had appeared on the motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I have already ruled that the name that appears is not significant. Both Government and Opposition Members often speak to a motion to which their name does not appear, although other Members' names do.

Michael Fabricant: I think that the House and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would welcome it if I moved on a little.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend referred earlier to the possibility of the Deputy Leader of the House—

Douglas Hogg: Full time.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) referred to the possibility the full-time Deputy Leader of the House making an intervention. Is there not a sad lacuna in Standing Orders that prevents hon. Members from sitting down to allow Front Benchers to intervene—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say respectfully to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think that I need such advice on procedure at this time?

Michael Fabricant: I shall move on and refer again to the excellent document that is obtainable from the Library of the House of Commons.

Anthony Steen: Free of charge.

Michael Fabricant: It is obtainable free of charge, as my hon. Friend says. The document features a nice picture of the Speaker in full regalia, and I hope that he will wear that or something similar in Glasgow. A picture of the Speaker's grandson is shown on the back cover of the document.

Andrew Turner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend is trying my patience but I shall give way.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend refers to the regalia that Mr. Speaker will wear when the degree is conferred. Is it not normal for those on whom degrees are conferred—

Anthony Steen: Graduands.

Andrew Turner: Is it not normal for graduands to wear the robe and gown—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have had to rule the hon. Gentleman out of order on four out of four interventions. His comment cannot be relevant to the motion. I hope that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) will not draw too heavily on the book that he has with him.

Michael Fabricant: I shall not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall quote only one sentence because it is key to the issue and the philosophical question of whether it is right for Mr. Speaker to be given leave of absence from the House on Wednesday.
	Page 8 of the document says:
	"It is because the Speaker represents the House of Commons, which itself represents the people of the United Kingdom and is the safeguard of the fundamental freedoms of the country, that he or she is treated with honour and dignity."

George Osborne: We are aware that Mr. Speaker is receiving the honour not only as Speaker of the House, but as the constituency Member for Glasgow, Springburn. My hon. Friend should bear that in mind.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point but I argue that Mr. Speaker is probably receiving the degree primarily because he is Speaker of the House. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is nodding in agreement.

George Osborne: I do not want to cross my hon. Friend but I am not sure whether it is entirely clear that the university of Glasgow—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot go down that particular lane.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I realise that the exact terms of the motion refer to the Speaker being given leave of absence on Wednesday 18 June. If my hon. Friend's idea were really borne in mind, the motion would have referred to the Speaker and Member of Parliament for so on and so forth.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just said that the point made by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) should not be borne in mind at all.

Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been following the debate, as I am sure that you have. Will we have such a debate every time Mr. Speaker leaves the precincts or is this a one-off debate so that we can adjust to the situation and decide whether to join in or not?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not been following the debate for quite as long as me. This is a one-off occasion. We do not know how many times the occupant of the Chair or any Member of the House might be so honoured.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For absolute clarification, I hope that you will confirm that Standing Orders require that each time Mr. Speaker needs to be away from the House, except on Fridays, such a motion must be put before the House, debated and voted on, if necessary. I hope that you will confirm that each occasion of absence, other than on a Friday, is a matter for individual treatment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can, indeed, confirm that. It is why there is a motion on the Order Paper that need, or need not, be debated according to circumstances.

John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry but my brow is furrowed and I am frankly troubled by this afternoon's events. I seek assurance and I would be appreciative of your guidance. It was helpful that you advised us that the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain) was holding the first of his meetings with Mr. Speaker this afternoon because the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us that himself. On a point of procedure and with regard to what might be described as old-fashioned parliamentary courtesy, would it have been appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman either to speak to the motion or to explain why he was not doing so, given that although he knew that he could not be here now, he did manage to be present for the Deputy Prime Minister's statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already explained that the appearance of Ministers' names on a motion does not necessarily indicate that all or any will be present to move it. I do not think that there is any difficulty at all or that we can continue to go over this ground. If the hon. Gentleman continues to have a furrowed brow, I suggest that he takes up the issue with his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who is Chairman of the Procedure Committee.

Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You and I have been Members of the House for a long time—you rather longer than me. Would you be good enough to confirm that a Minister will often stand up at the beginning of a debate to say a few words to the motion and to apologise for, and explain, the absence of a Minister such as the part-time Leader of the House when the latter's name heads the motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I can speak from considerable experience to say that that does not always happen and that the House does not always take it in bad heart.

Andrew Mitchell: Further to the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that you made it clear that the House must pass a motion each time that Mr. Speaker needs to be away from the House. Will you enlighten me on what would happen if Mr. Speaker knew that he would be away for three days during a two-month period? Could that be allowed by one consolidated motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is entirely hypothetical. The answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was crystal clear in the context of our debate today.

Michael Fabricant: I cannot help but ask myself whether it is right that Mr. Speaker should be given leave of absence on Wednesday 18 June, given the unique circumstances of having a part-time Leader of the House who cannot be present and who allows his full-time deputy to be present without putting the deputy's name—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that matter and have tried to assist the House as well as I can. We should proceed with the debate on the substance of the motion.

Michael Fabricant: I was merely going to ask whether such an action would be courteous.

Eric Forth: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. That august body, the House of Commons Commission, is meeting as we speak. I am a member of the Commission for the time being, but I have chosen to fulfil my parliamentary duties by being in the Chamber. The part-time Leader of the House has chosen to be in the Commission meeting. I shall leave my hon. Friend and others present to judge which they think is the better choice.

Michael Fabricant: That is an interesting point. I hope that tens of millions of pounds will not be wasted on blank cheques because of the absence of my right hon. Friend, who is always cautious when he attends the Commission's meetings.
	I was talking about the role of the Speaker in representing the United Kingdom. As I mentioned before, his receipt of an honorary doctorate in Glasgow strengthens the role of the UK at a difficult time. Only today we heard a statement on regional assemblies—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is becoming repetitious. He prompts me by saying "as I mentioned before". I remind him how close we might be to implementing Standing Order No. 42.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your reminder of Standing Order No. 42 and for reminding me not to remind the Chair when I have already made a point. That might be good advice for when I am invited to take part in "Just a Minute" on BBC Radio 4.
	My serious point relates to the role of Mr. Speaker in representing all of us in the United Kingdom.

Sydney Chapman: I remind my hon. Friend that next Wednesday sees a happy conjunction of events. First, Mr. Speaker will, we hope, have leave of absence to get his honorary doctorate at Glasgow university. I shall certainly vote for the motion. Secondly, the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means will celebrate his 33rd anniversary of being elected to the House. A few others will also celebrate that anniversary but, sadly, it is only a few. With his huge experience, the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means has my full confidence in acting for the Speaker on that day in particular.

Michael Fabricant: I am very grateful for that intervention. The whole House can congratulate the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means on his 33rd anniversary in the House. I for one have no doubt that even though we have a complex and difficult day on Wednesday 18 June, the Deputy Speaker, acting as qua Speaker, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, will do so with dignity and equal skill.
	It will be a difficult day. That is relevant. As some hon. Members said, we have questions to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister. We have also learned that there will be a statement by the Prime Minister on the future constitution of Parliament, directly flowing from the Speaker's intervention and request. A 10-minute Bill is on the Order Paper—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to go through the Order Paper. For all I know, it is as yet incomplete for Wednesday. He might know that I have sat in the Chair to deal with the contentious matter of 10-minute Bills before.

Michael Fabricant: Do you not think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Domestic Violence (Law Reform) Bill, which will be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, might be so contentious that the House becomes disorderly?

Eric Forth: Is my hon. Friend not slightly worried about the hint dropped by Mr. Deputy Speaker a moment ago when he said that the Order Paper "is as yet incomplete"? The anxiety is not what we already know about the Order Paper, but what could arise between now and Wednesday. Has my hon. Friend thought of that?

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend raises an important point. Who would have thought that a statement would have bitten into Opposition day time last week? That was pretty surprising given the agreement on both sides of the House that that should not happen. We do not know what will happen on Wednesday. It is an important day. I have put my name down to speak in the debate on European affairs, and I hope that I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a good way about it.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the purposes of clarification, will you advise the House what aspects of my hon. Friend's speechifying are likely to disqualify him so that we can all learn from his experience?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was merely alluding to the fact that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) was bringing himself to prominence by stressing that he hoped to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair at the relevant time on Wednesday.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for that—

Henry Bellingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I left the Chamber a few moments ago to go to the gents and then to have a glass of water and make a few telephone calls. I left in the hope that by the time I returned my hon. Friend would have finished his speech. I notice from the annunciator that he started his speech at 6.8 pm. It is now 6.16 pm. There must be a mistake. I have a feeling he started at least 40 minutes ago.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is a mistake on the annunciator, but we were all so engrossed in the speech of the hon. Member for Lichfield that none of us noticed.

Michael Fabricant: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are a generous man and I have no doubt that you will ably replace—if that is the right word—the Speaker on Wednesday 18 June. Given that the amount of time one speaks in this debate might be linked to one's chances of speaking on Wednesday, it might be useful if I concluded my remarks.
	At the beginning I asked whether it is right to give the Speaker leave to go to Glasgow to have an honorary doctorate conferred on him. I believe that it is. It is an honour not only for Mr. Speaker Martin, but for the House. The Speaker performs his role with dignity and excellence. Those who carp about the Speaker would not dream of doing the job themselves. The criticisms of him are driven by class, arrogance and pomposity. He has created an atmosphere in the House that compares well, if not better, with that of certain former Speakers, who I believe created in some instances an aura of terror. I just wanted to get that point on the record. I for one will support the motion.

Phil Woolas: I am in an unusual position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you will permit me, I shall stray from the narrow order of the debate simply to say what a great honour and privilege it is to speak from the Dispatch Box. I hope that in whatever time I spend in this post, I do my constituents of Oldham, East and Saddleworth, and the House and its rules, proud. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.
	I find myself in unusual circumstances also because, contrary to my assessment that this would be merely a pleasurable rubber-stamping exercise, the civil servants in the Office of the Leader of the House, whom I have already discovered to be excellent, advised me to prepare some notes in the event that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) wanted, with whatever motive, to make some remarks.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Woolas: Yes, but briefly and just once, if I may.

John Bercow: I am very grateful indeed. Having known the hon. Gentleman for 18 years, I take particular pleasure in congratulating him on his appointment as Deputy Leader of the House. May I put it to him—in the context of the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you will readily understand—that his appointment represents a promotion not only on his previous post in the Whips Office but on the important role that he played 17 years ago as a very left-wing leader of the National Union of Students?

Phil Woolas: Those 18 years have taught me not to wander into such territory, but I am grateful for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister, however new, to come to the Dispatch Box, purportedly to wind up a debate, and say brazenly that he will take only one intervention? Is that in the spirit of the House of Commons? Indeed, does it accord with the Standing Orders of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely at the discretion of all right hon. or hon. Members whether and how often they give way in the course of debate.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not usual in a debate such as this for the Minister to wind up at the end, when he has had the opportunity of hearing everybody speak, so that he can respond to them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Minister rises in his place, it is usual for the Chair to call him at that time.

Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, I understand that, but surely it is usual for the Minister to wish to listen to the views of right hon. and hon. Members before rising to his feet, so that he can respond to their points.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Chair.

Phil Woolas: The motion is extremely narrow and relates simply to the decision by the university of Glasgow to honour our Speaker with a doctorate this Wednesday. The House will find it surprising that the Conservative Members who spoke for an hour and three quarters—we could conclude from that that there has been a failure of opposition—in attempting unnecessarily to prolong the proceedings have served almost to ridicule the honour to be bestowed by the university of Glasgow. I suspect that their contributions also bordered on disrespect for your position as set out in Standing Order No. 3, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you rightly outlined.

George Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is for you to decide whether we are showing disrespect to the Chair, rather than for another Member to accuse us of doing so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have made one or two rulings in the course of the debate to try to guide right hon. and hon. Members away from any such criticism.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that you would be the first to say that right hon. and hon. Members have responded to your guidance and accurately reflected your wishes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would always like to think so.

Phil Woolas: Suffice it to say that Labour Members are certainly delighted to hear the news of the honour for our Speaker, who, like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is held in extremely high regard—on both sides of the House, I hope, but certainly on this side.
	For the record, I have been informed that there have been five such motions in the last 10 years, so although infrequent, they are not unusual. I have also been informed—this may be of interest to the House and may serve as a lesson for Conservative Members—that such motions have never been objected to or, indeed, spoken to. That will explain my actions. As you rightly pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for doing so, it is perfectly normal for a Deputy Leader of the House to move a motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Indeed, it is normal for an obscure, unheard of and brand new Deputy Speaker to do so.

George Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that I heard the hon. Gentleman refer to the Deputy Speaker as obscure and brand new. Neither of those things applies to you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I caught no such drift.

Phil Woolas: I am sure that Hansard will record my remarks as being about myself, the Deputy Leader.

Henry Bellingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Woolas: No, I am afraid not. I said earlier that I would not give way, and the House is anxious to get on to the substantive business.
	I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip would support me in concluding my remarks quickly, given the important business before the House. As I said, Conservative Members have tainted the distinction that the university of Glasgow is to give our Speaker. It is a great shame that what should be a non-partisan issue has been used in that way, for whatever reason.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The shadow Leader of the House clearly was not listening to the debate. I alluded to a strange event last week when, on an Opposition day, the Government chose to make a statement. The Deputy Leader of the House might like to think about that.

Phil Woolas: The shadow Leader of the House may not have been listening to the debate, and I shall not respond to those remarks.
	We have had a wide-ranging debate, which, as you pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, went beyond the subject of the motion on several occasions. I simply say that the time for the proceedings on the Licensing Bill, which is before the House later today, is protected, so it is difficult to understand the point of the last two hours of debate if the intention was to delay the consideration of the proposals for late licensing. Perhaps the only benefit of the Opposition's tactics has been to secure late licensing in the House of Commons. That said, the best thing to do is move on.

George Foulkes: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 105.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Main Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the Speaker have leave of absence on Wednesday 18th June to receive the honorary degree of Doctor of the University of Glasgow.

Licensing Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

Kim Howells: I beg to move,
	That the programme order of 24th March 2003 in relation to the Licensing Bill [Lords] be varied as follows:
	Consideration and Third Reading
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table and each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.
	
		TABLE
		
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 2 to 8, Schedule 3 and Clauses 9 to 15 Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. 
			 Amendments relating to Clauses 16 to 111, Schedule 4, Clauses 112 to 176, Schedule 5 and Clauses 177 to 192 Four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. 
			 Amendments relating to Clauses 193 to 196 and Schedules 6 to 8, New Clauses, New Schedules and remaining proceedings on the Bill Five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. 
		
	
	3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
	As hon. Members know, the Bill has received long and detailed scrutiny both here and in another place. There were some five hours debate on Second Reading in another place, six days in Committee in another place, three days on Report and more than three hours of debate on Third Reading—getting on for 60 hours in all.
	We had a full and wide-ranging Second Reading debate in this House. The Bill was considered for 17 sittings of the Standing Committee, and I am grateful to all hon. Members who participated in our consideration of it for their constructive contributions, which made for a useful and thorough discussion. I do not doubt that the Bill is all the better for that.
	The programme motion will allow us to discuss the issues in a sensible way. Grouping amendments with the relevant clauses and schedules will allow us to take a logical approach to the debates. Again, I emphasise that there has already been ample discussion in both Houses of the vast majority of the issues before us today. That is why I believe that the full day of debate today should provide us with sufficient time to refine many of the arguments that have been exposed during the Bill's passage. I appreciate that there are outstanding issues to which hon. Members will wish to return. We have given careful consideration to the structure, and the time allotted to each group of amendments reflects that.

Julia Drown: My hon. Friend emphasised the long discussions that have taken place on the Bill, but it is a wide-ranging Bill. I am particularly interested in the two hours allotted for schedule 1, as that affects my constituents who suffer from motocross events that are not licensed, and could have been covered by schedule 1. As no amendment to that has been selected today, will he ensure that there are further ministerial meetings with me and colleagues from Swindon so that we can pursue the matter further?

Kim Howells: I am well aware that my hon. Friend has done sterling work in trying to reflect the great difficulties that some of her constituents have suffered as a consequence of the nature of the event that she described, and some of the behaviour associated with it. I understand that ministerial meetings will take place with her so that the matter can be pursued a little further through more appropriate channels than discussion during our consideration of the Bill.
	A considerable number of the amendments to be debated today have been tabled by the Government, following careful consideration of points raised in Committee, and I hope that these will be generally welcomed. I look forward to an interesting and lively debate.

Malcolm Moss: May I begin by congratulating the Minister on his promotion and change of Department? I see from today's Evening Standard that he has wasted no time in putting the fares up on the railways. Whether he is to be congratulated on that, I am not sure. [Interruption.] That is news to him, he says.
	Perhaps it is a pity that such a fine Minister was part of a botched reshuffle. Following on from the Government's indecisiveness over that, today we had one Minister nominated to take the Report stage through, then another, and then back to the previous Minister. We welcome him this evening, because he understands the issues more than any other of his colleagues, but we are also disappointed, because we know before we start that he is highly unlikely to yield anything at all this evening, as he would not want to leave any potential hostages to fortune to his successor, whoever that might be.
	During our proceedings this evening, we may get a feeling that the Minister considers himself well shot of this difficult Bill. He has, of course, been unfortunate in having the two major Bills from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to take through Parliament this Session—the Communications Bill and the Licensing Bill. It would have been superhuman of him to be able to devote the full time and deal properly with all the issues arising from the two massive Bills that were handed to him.
	If there has been one recurrent and consistent theme throughout the passage of the Bill, first through their lordships' House and now through this House, it is the fact that many interested parties, organisations and groups have not had the consultation that they feel they need and deserve.
	I have forgotten the number of times that I have heard from interested parties that their letters have been ignored and their requests for meetings turned down. As a result, at this very late stage, a sizeable number of people who are faced with the impact of the legislation on their lives and businesses are, to put it mildly, distinctly unimpressed. They see the motion as yet another demonstration of the desire of an arrogant and out-of-touch Government to railroad a Bill through the House with their huge majority while totally ignoring the views of those who know more about the practicalities and the operation of licensing and entertainment in all its guises than—I say this with all due respect—those who have compiled the Bill.
	As the Minister told us, there are about 115 amendments and new clauses to debate this evening. The Opposition have some serious reservations about the groupings and the way in which the guillotines will fall. For example, in the first two hours there are only 22 amendments to discuss, but in the next two hours there are some 80 amendments, 52 of which are Government amendments. The Minister was proud to boast about those amendments, but the fact is that the majority of the issues with which they deal were not even mentioned in Committee, and the Government have thought them up since. Notwithstanding all the issues that were debated in Committee and the points that were made, the Government have not taken up one of those proposals in any shape or form.
	Time and again, those who will be most affected—in some cases, this applies to those who were actively involved in the process in the early stages—have told me that the Bill has evolved to be much wider than what was proposed in the White Paper. New issues have been introduced on which there was no consultation in respect of the Home Office White Paper. In Committee, and now on Report, when the Opposition attempt to give voice to those resentments and frustrations, the Government seem oblivious to any proposals or suggestions, however pragmatic and workable. Worse than that, they reversed almost all the Lords amendments in Committee, where guillotines fell to cut off debate on some key issues. Similarly, the time allotted on Report for the groups of amendments will no doubt mean that the guillotine will fall and key issues will not be debated.
	The Government's tactics may be to dig in and take their chances in the other place when the Bill returns there on Thursday, but they run the risk of riding roughshod over sensible and helpful suggestions. That can only store up problems for them that will arise when the Bill is enacted and must be implemented in its many forms. This is far too important a measure to be treated in that way.

Adrian Sanders: I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss).
	The Bill has indeed changed since its original conception in terms of the consultation papers that were available and the broad outline that the Government published. Many Lords amendments have been reversed. A reflection of why we need more time than is being proposed is the number of amendments tabled and the number of representations made to hon. Members associated with the Committee. There is a great deal of disquiet among those involved in the alcohol and entertainment industries. They are rightly concerned on a number of levels because of what they understand that the Bill contains.
	I concede that in some respects, the perception of the Bill is far worse than the detail, but it is the Government's job to go out and sell the Bill and to give the industry confidence that they are not going to tie it up in added expense, red tape and difficulty. At the same time, they must ensure that the public's expectations of the Bill in terms of improved law and order will be met. At the moment, that message is not getting through. There is a need to consider the Bill at some length—certainly at greater length than is being proposed.
	Question put and agreed to. Orders of the Day

Licensing Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Provision Of Regulated Entertainment

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 162, in page 109, line 31, at end insert
	'for the entertainment or entertainment facilities'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 163, in page 110, line 14, at end insert—
	'( ) For the purposes of subparagraph (4)(a), a person concerned in the organisation or management of entertainment facilities is not concerned in the organisation and management of the entertainment within paragraph 3(2) by reason only—
	(a) that he makes available the entertainment facilities or the premises on which the entertainment facilities are provided, or
	(b) that during the entertainment he continues to organise or manage the premises on which entertainment facilities are provided.'.

Malcolm Moss: A number of organisations, including the Historic Houses Association, are concerned about the definition of private events in the Bill. That drafting means that private events—in particular, wedding receptions and concerts—could inadvertently be drawn into the scope of the Bill, despite the statement that the Minister made to the Historic Houses Association in a letter of 30 January:
	"It is not the intention or the effect of the Bill to require wedding parties to require a licence to serve alcohol at their reception or provide entertainment for their guests (except in the rare circumstance when guests are charged to attend the wedding)".
	Despite that statement, the situation still appears far from clear. The Historic Houses Association is working hard to encourage more houses to open up, and the Opposition are concerned about anything that will needlessly frustrate those endeavours and restrict public access to and enjoyment of our heritage. We support its efforts to encourage more tourists to visit such locations.
	The Government have already revised paragraph 1(4)(a)(ii) of the schedule expressly to prevent private events from being brought within the scope of the Bill. Indeed, in its new form the provision states that private entertainment facilities need to be licensed only if any charge is made and if the owner or manager is also involved in the organisation of the music, dancing or provision of alcohol. However, the interpretation of that provision appears far from clear. I shall give the House two examples. First, officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have said to various people that the provision of a dance floor would fall within the definition. That appears to encompass informally making available—I quote from the Bill—"space within a room". Of course, dancing could take place in such a space. The provision could thus result in an anomalous situation whereby a licence would not be needed if a bride and groom hired a marquee, complete with a dance floor, to be placed in the garden of a house, but one would be needed if dancing took place inside the house.
	The second anomaly relates to paragraph 1(1)(b), which expressly gives an exemption when a person performing or playing music at a private event provides any facilities for the purposes of his performance. We believe that that definition needs to be extended to avoid a licence requirement applying if a bride and groom hire audio equipment, but not if the person performing or playing music provides the equipment.
	At best, the legislation is still highly ambiguous. At worst, it appears contrary to what the Department intends. Unless there is extremely clear guidance—we await guidance on many issues even at this late stage of the Bill's passage—the legislation will become subject to widely differing interpretation, which will cause confusion and inconsistency of application. The amendments seek to address those problems.

Kim Howells: I, too, have great admiration for the Historic Houses Association. It is doing excellent work in opening up some of the most wonderful buildings and gardens, which are great assets to the tourism trade.
	Let me say up-front that the Government cannot accept amendment No. 162, as it would introduce a serious loophole into the entertainment licensing regime. I shall try to explain why. It would allow any individual who wished to put on entertainment under paragraph 1(2)(c) of schedule 1 to circumvent the licensing requirements altogether, simply by providing sandwiches, for example, and making a charge that he or she claimed to be for the food, but which was actually for the entertainment. The amendment would drive the proverbial coach and horses through this part of the Bill, and I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw it.
	Amendment 163 is a little more complicated. Those who inspired it have aired their concerns to the Department on a number of occasions. They are concerned about situations in which the owner of a stately home might wish, for example, to hire out the ballroom to a third party who would then organise the entertainment at a wedding. They argue that in such circumstances the owner of the home should not require a premises licence or other authorisation if they take no further part in the entertainment.
	The Government agree with that view, and we have amended the Bill to make that clear. Let me explain how. Schedule 1 sets out a number of conditions that determine whether the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities is regulated entertainment. The condition in sub-paragraph (2)(c) is that where entertainment is not provided essentially to the public, or exclusively for members of a club, it is regulated entertainment where it is provided
	"for consideration and with a view to profit."
	Sub-paragraph (4) sets out what we mean by "consideration". It states that
	"entertainment is, or entertainment facilities are, only to be regarded as provided for consideration if any charge—
	(a) is made by or on behalf of—
	(i) any person concerned in the organisation or management of that entertainment, or . . . those facilities".
	In relation to entertainment facilities, sub-paragraph (4) provides that a person will not be so concerned unless he is
	"also concerned in the organisation or management of the entertainment within paragraph 3(2) in which those facilities enable persons to take part".
	Clearly, that excludes the circumstances that I described a moment ago. The owner of the stately home would be concerned in the provision of the entertainment facilities—the dance floor, say—but not in the organisation of the entertainment for which those facilities were provided.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's trouble, because it is a complicated issue, but I hope that in the light of my explanation and assurances he will see fit not to press the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister attempts to separate the functions taking place under private agency in the grounds of an historic house, and an entertainment facility within the house itself—a ballroom, for example. Surely, however, the management of that enterprise will be involved in the setting up of whatever the customer wants to take place in the ballroom. They cannot simply say, "There's the ballroom: get on with it." They will have to be involved in some discourse about where things go, where the power points are, and so forth. That is where the anomaly arises. It is not clear-cut where the demarcation lies between the non-licensable activity taking place in the garden, perhaps under a marquee, and facilities that are being provided in the house. How do people avoid that problem?

Kim Howells: I hope that the hon. Gentleman considers my explanation to be authoritative. As I said, it is a complicated issue, but I am confident that I have said enough to give some comfort to him and to owners of historic houses who may feel threatened or concerned about this part of the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful for the Minister's assurances. Knowing him as I do, I am sure that they will be transferred verbatim to his successor, whom we shall no doubt hold to account in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 111, line 27, leave out from '2' to end of line 28 and insert—
	'(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1), the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music shall not be regarded as anything other than incidental to some other activity, merely because it has been advertised.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 161, in page 111, line 28, at end insert—
	'Performance of live music indoors
	7A (1) The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music indoors is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act if—
	(a) it takes place wholly inside a building,
	(b) the audience present at the event is accommodated wholly inside that building, and
	(c) the size of the audience and the noise resulting from the event do not exceed the prescribed limits.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall by order prescribe the limits referred to in subparagraph (1)(c).'.
	No. 132, in page 111, line 32, after 'that', insert—
	'(a) such entertainment is inaudible outside the premises, and
	(b)'.
	No. 109, in page 112, line 2, at end insert—
	9A The provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities in the premises of an educational establishment for the purposes directly connected to the activities of the establishment is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.'.
	No. 63, in page 112, line 18, at end insert—
	'Small events—live music
	(1) The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act where—
	(a) the number of listeners or spectators present does not exceed 200 at any one time, and
	(b) the entertainment ceases no later than 11.30 pm.
	(2) The provision of entertainment facilities solely for the purposes of entertainment described in subparagraph (1) is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.
	(3) Nothing in this paragraph shall be read as rendering invalid or otherwise affecting any provision of, or any regulation made under, any other legislation that applies to the entertainment, the entertainment facilities or the premises on which the entertainment is to take place.'.
	No. 105, in page 112, line 18, at end insert—
	'Traditional folk performances
	The provision of entertainment consisting of paceegging, mumming, morris dancing, souling or other traditional folk performances of a similar character is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.'.
	No. 160, in page 112, line 18, at end insert—
	'Small events — dance and plays
	The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of dance or plays is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes for this Act where—
	(a) the performance takes place in the open air; and
	(b) the performance ends before 11.30 p.m.; and either
	(c) the number of persons performing does not at any time exceed twenty four, or
	(d) the number of listeners or audience does not exceed 200.'.
	No. 62, in page 113, line 19, at end insert—
	'(2) The "performance of live music" means a performance of any musical composition, whether involving improvisation or not,—
	(a) which is given wholly or in part by one or more persons actually present and performing, and
	(b) in which the whole or a major proportion of what is done by the person or persons performing is either singing, or the playing of a musical instrument, or both.'.

Malcolm Moss: I shall begin by speaking exclusively to amendment No. 64, which relates to the exemption provisions in part 2 of schedule 1. We tabled the amendment because although we had a good debate in Committee on incidental music, and the Minister made every attempt under the sun to define it for us, we remained unconvinced. He made a good fist of it, however. He said:
	"If the entertainment is advertised and the purpose of the music is to draw in customers and to make a profit for the business, that has a direct bearing on the business and it would be difficult to describe it as incidental."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 April 2003; c. 69.]
	The reason for the amendment is simple. If something is advertised, why should it be read across to bottom-line profit? Should it necessarily be regarded as a nefarious activity involving trying to make money? To my knowledge, most people who run pubs are in the business of trying to make money, so why will the activity be precluded from the exemptions under paragraph 7 if it is advertised? If there was to be an exchange of money or a charge at the door, then, yes, perhaps there would be a direct correlation between the advertisement of the event and people turning up as result and paying their money. One could then say that the pub landlord was indeed trying to make money out of advertising the music. However, if there was no charge at the door, surely he would simply be attempting to get more people into his pub. I suppose that he would hope to sell more alcohol, but there is not necessarily any direct correlation between people coming to enjoy some folk music, or the improvisation of certain musicians, and drinking more alcohol.
	We tabled the amendment in a different form from that which we debated in Committee to tease out from the Minister exactly why he and those advising him think that advertising folk music in the local pub means that it should be licensable, given that the music that is played may be the same background music as would be played normally if it had not been advertised. Precluding it from the exemptions is neither logical, sensible nor fair to those involved.
	There is surely an argument that we should encourage pubs to put on live music of any kind. In Committee, the Minister was frequently at pains to stress that he championed live music and wanted more music to be played and heard in pubs and clubs. We will discuss the meatier stuff in the Bill later, but the measure might achieve the opposite of what the Minister genuinely—I choose the word with care—wants to happen.
	It could be argued that incidental music—indeed, any live music—should be encouraged in pubs. Doing so means not only that the landlord or tenant encourages live music and the musicians who play it, but the encouragement of social cohesion in villages and rural areas. It would spread culture and the arts and foster the sort of ambience and lifestyle that are so vital to our tourist industry. As the former Minister for tourism, the hon. Gentleman said that we needed to broaden the range of our activities to encourage people from not only abroad but our country to visit rural communities and participate in the sort of events that I described. We believe that the encouragement that the former Minister for tourism gave should be adopted.
	We are not considering a band session in which people sit and listen to the music all the time, but music in the background, with different people playing. The amendment would help folk groups and promote social cohesion and culture in our rural communities.
	Amendment No. 63 deals with the "Small events—live music" exemption and is coupled with consequential amendment No. 62, which defines the performance of live music. It resembles an amendment that was accepted in the other place. However, the Government saw fit to reject it in Committee. We believe that it is so important that we have tabled it again. If my antennae serve me well, the matter will be around for several sittings in the other place as well as here for a little longer; it will not go away. As I said earlier, the Government may have decided to dig in and go to the wire on the matter, but I believe that they must devise a sensible and practical provision on small events and relevant issues to live music in small gatherings to get the Bill through all its stages.
	Throughout the Bill's passage, those involved, such as the Musicians Union, the Association of British Jazz Musicians and the English Folk Dance and Song Society, have not wavered from their opinion that the measure will prove a disaster for the performing arts. Indeed, they believe that it goes against the Government's much heralded inclusivity banner and that the Bill is perhaps the most exclusive measure drafted by a Labour Government. Although it was hailed as an improvement, the organisations state that
	"this hodge-podge of proposals actually extends the arbitrary discriminations of the old licensing regime."
	They give examples. First, the Bill appears to allow a full-scale stand-up comedy routine, with stage, lighting and amplification, but insists on a licence to perform a play. Fears continue that a "play" could cover Punch and Judy shows.
	I received a letter today from someone who takes his Punch and Judy tent to many events throughout the country. He is miffed that he may not be allowed to do that in future if he has to obtain a licence at every location that he visits. I shall not go into detail about that now, but it is another example of someone who has realised that the Bill is all pervasive and catches all sorts of people who perform a tremendous service to the community and bring enjoyment to many people.

Andrew Turner: Yesterday, I attended a social function that the Ventnor branch of the Isle of Wight Conservative Association organised. A young man called Christopher Philpott, who is a pupil at the middle school in Ventnor, expressed his concern—entirely unsolicited—that Punch and Judy shows would have to be licensed forthwith. When the Minister winds up, I should like him to state whether they need to be licensed and not merely say that the matter is in the hands of the licensing authority.

Malcolm Moss: I am sure that the Minister heard my hon. Friend's intervention. I expect that he will preface his remarks with, "It all depends."
	Another anomaly is that the Bill allows big-screen broadcasts and amplified juke boxes anywhere, but insists that live performance be licensed. It allows a play, dance, disco or musical performance in a place of worship or at a garden fête, but insists on a licence when the same events are held in a school, university or restaurant. The Bill also insists that traditional song and dance on village greens should be licensed.
	What grounds do the Government cite for regulating live music? Noise was frequently mentioned in Committee, but when one examines the statistics, one wonders why it is such a major issue. The Noise Abatement Society states that noisy people outside the premises are the cause of 81 per cent. of complaints about pubs and bars. The United Kingdom Noise Association states that complaints about live music are relatively rare. Indeed, it receives more complaints about noisy recorded music. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, all local authorities can seize noisy equipment immediately and issue £20,000 noise abatement notices for compliance forthwith or in anticipation of a noise nuisance. Under current legislation, the police can close noisy pubs immediately for up to 24 hours. The Institute of Alcohol Studies, which canvasses the views of residents' associations, states that none has ever made an issue about live music.
	What about public safety? We understand that a radical new fire safety regime for workplaces is due to be published in mid 2004 and will be called the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order. It will apply to premises including cinemas, theatres, pubs and restaurants and cover the provision of entertainment irrespective of licensing requirements.
	Employers and the self-employed have statutory duties to make risk assessments of their work activities, covering risk to employees and others in connection with their work. Failure to undertake such risk assessment could lead to criminal prosecution. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 imposes a duty on employers to ensure as far as practicable the health and safety of employees and non-employees who may be affected.
	Event organisers, promoters and licensees are bound by this duty to ensure that premises are safe and without risks to health.
	Who is to be affected by the measures? What of the impact on those involved? Let us consider the folk arts in England. Forget Scotland—which has a much less onerous licensing regime—Ireland, where I am sure the regime is even more liberal, and Wales. Let us just look at England, where we have a rich living cultural heritage in the form of the various folk arts and customs, including music, song, dance, drama, storytelling, games and other customary events and celebrations. These folk art forms are true community arts; they are inherently participatory, encouraging imagination, aspiration and learning.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the resurgence of magazines such as Folk Roots illustrates that there is currently a renaissance in English, Welsh and Scottish folk music? The concerns that he is raising are shared by the readers and authors of that magazine.

Malcolm Moss: The hon. Gentleman emphasises my point that this is a growing and developing part of our cultural heritage that ought to be encouraged rather thanaccording to its practitioners' interpretation of the Bill, and ourshave its activities curtailed in one form or another.
	Folk art activity is extremely widespread, despite attracting relatively little attention in the mainstream arts listings and media. Let us look at the statistics. There are around 750 folk dance teams nationwide, including morris, clog, molly, longsword, rapper, Appalachian and other international styles. These teams involve more than 14,000 dancers, musicians and singers, and together they provide at least 10,500 folk dance events for at least 500,000 members of the public each year.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, having sat through the Committee proceedings and Second Reading, of the two-in-a-bar rule, under which two musicians, two dancers, two singers, or two people doing a recitation are allowed to perform. This great renaissance of folk music is taking place at a time when this law is in force. Is he saying that that renaissance is due entirely to the fact that two people, and only two people, can sing their way through an evening in a pub? Or is he saying that this golden age owes its existence to a very different legal regime from the one that exists now?

Malcolm Moss: I shall be coming to the two-in-a-bar problem later. To answer the Minister's question, the renaissance does not relate simply to the two-in-a-bar rule in pubs. We are not just talking about a renaissance of folk arts and music; it is general and across the board. These people perform in other places as well as pubs. Obviously the licensing implications will affect them when they carry out those activities in pubs, but I do not remember seeing many morris dancers doing their stuff inside the pub. Perhaps they do on some occasions, but they normally perform outside in the open air. I shall come to that matter later as well.
	There are at least 400 folk song, music and dance clubs in England. A minimum of 9,000 regular folk music sessions and singarounds take place in England each year, though hundreds more spontaneous, one-off events also occur. The greatest number of these folk arts activities are small scale and occur within local communities, outside the mainstream of arts planning and provision. On a community level, they are almost entirely voluntary and therefore highly sensitive to legislation, particularly when it carries cost implications.
	In my opening remarks, I alluded to the fact that many interested parties and groups had attempted to get their views across to the Department and, in particular, to the Minister. I remember addressing this issue in Committee, particularly in relation to the English Folk Dance and Song SocietyEFDSS. On 8 May, in Committee, the Minister said:
	I have had lengthy meetings with representatives of all the large morris, folk song and dance groups, including wassailers, storytellers and mummers. I took them through the Bill and they were much happier at the end of it than they were when we began. [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 May 2003; c. 443.]
	But EFDSS has written to me at this late stage to say that it is concerned because
	this is absolutely not the case.
	The society says that it was grateful to the Minister for the meeting on 3 April, and that he had opened the door to further discussions between the society and the Department, but in reality it remained worried by the legislation and had
	not received adequate answers to the specific questions
	that it had raised. Here we are, discussing the Bill on Report, with Third Reading imminent and the Bill then going back to the other place, yet many of the questions that were rightly raised by these bodies have not been answered. The answers might not be the ones that they want to hear, but they do not think that they have had a fair or proper hearing.
	EFDSS has warned the Government that many folk music and song clubs that are currently not covered by entertainment licensing might become so under the new Bill. It states that many such clubs currently operate as private, members-only clubs which attendees have to join at least 48 hours before benefiting from any entertainment. It is their belief that there is therefore no requirement for them to have a public entertainments licence. EFDSS believes, however, that under the Bill, there will be no such get-out, and that the majority of England's 400 folk clubs could become licensable.
	EFDSS first submitted its concerns to the Department in February; so far, it has had no answer. It believes that the legislation relating to public safety is more than adequate to take care of the safety and noise aspects, and it has four questions that it wants to put to the Minister, through me. Perhaps he could answer them this evening in his response.
	How does the Government feel that folk clubs will be affected by the Licensing Bill?
	Why is current, subsisting legislation deficient with regard to folk clubs?
	What is the pressing social need to extending entertainments licensing regulations to cover folk clubs when broadcast football matches and loud recorded music in pubs remains exempt?
	Does the Government feel that folk clubs are an acceptable casualty in the pursuit of its other licensing objectives?
	Those are four excellent questions for the Minister to address.
	Coming to the two-in-a-bar rule, the Minister has made the point tonight and many times in Committeeand we understand thisthat the rule is the only existing form of limited exemption for live music at the present time. The justifications that are given for the new proposals, however, do not read well with those involved. Paragraph 3.5 of an entertainment factsheet published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport states:
	It is quite possible for a single performer using amplified equipment to give rise to considerably greater nuisance than four or even more entertainers performing acoustically. The Government simply does not accept that live music in pubs is never a source of disturbance.
	We would never say never, but the statistics on noise issues that I quoted earlier show that most complaints are not about the music inside the pubs but about noise outside the premises. In fact, no matter how noisy the playing of music and broadcast entertainment might be, they would be exempt from the new measures if they were incidental to the main business on the premises. It is the view of EFDSS that such an exemption for incidental music is unsatisfactory and does not go far enough.
	The problem for those in the entertainment business, if I can call it thatthe people involved in live music and entertainment of all kinds, most of it small scaleis not that it is easy to tick the box.
	How many times did the Minister say in Committee, Well, all they've got to do is tick the box.? That, of course, is the DCMS mantra: when someone applies for a premises licence, a little box on the same application form can be ticked, which says, Yes, I would like an entertainment licence to go with my alcohol licence. There is no additional fee on application for such an entertainment licence, but that is not the issue. The issue, of course, begins when all that gets to the licensing authority, which is the local authority.

Kevan Jones: Do the hon. Gentleman and others recognise that a pub or other venue has to apply for an alcohol licence and a separate entertainment licence, sometimes at great cost? That is putting off a lot of venues from applying. Surely the number of premises that consider putting on live entertainment will increase when there is one licence.

Malcolm Moss: That is wishful thinking, frankly. No one has done any research, and I have seen no analysis, to back up the hon. Gentleman's point. The Department and the Minister, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman, hope that that will be the case. Indeed, I hope that it will be the case, but among most landlords whom I have talked to out there in the real world, who have perhaps applied for public entertainment licences and had problems with local authorities or who have spoken to other licensees who have had difficulties and been involved with such costs, there is a feeling that ticking that box may lead them into all kinds of approaches from local authorities that will impose conditions and restrictions on them. Many people would happily not get involved with all that if they could avoid it.

Kevan Jones: From my experience as chair of public health in Newcastle, I know that the disincentive is not the bureaucracy that the hon. Gentleman talks about, but the current law and the expense of applying for the public entertainment licence in the first placesometimes people have to employ solicitors and go to a hearingand, secondly, the cost of the licence. Under the Bill, that will be done away with. There will be one licence, which surely will make it a lot simpler for many of those people who would consider putting on live entertainment, but who are discouraged from doing so due to the bureaucracy and cost.

Malcolm Moss: The hon. Gentleman is continuing the argument that has been used over and over again by the DCMS, and I think it false. It leads people to believe that just by ticking that box they will be able to have any form of entertainment on their premises. That is not the case. When the local authorities look at the operating schedule and what is proposed, they will come round to inspect. In the local authorities that I know, when such people get involved, they then start nit-picking. They will say, If you have more than a certain number of people in here, you must put in a new fire door, a new exit, do this, do that. [Interruption.]
	I ask the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) to talk to the publicans in his area. I have talked to publicans in my constituency, and those who have recently applied for public entertainment licences do not complain about the cost of that application, although I accept the point[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman's local authority may charge through the roof; I do not know. In parts of Cambridgeshire, local authorities do not charge inordinate fees for the application.

Kevan Jones: rose

Malcolm Moss: Let me finish my point. The hon. Gentleman must not be too eager. Now I have lost the thread, of course, which is exactly what he intended. It is not so much the cost of the application but the cost of the work that people are told to do so as to comply that worries them. If they are to have someone crawl all over their premises and dictate major improvements, they will not bother to tick the box. What will happen, which is even worse than the hon. Gentleman predicts, is that there will be not two in a bar, but none in a bar.

Kevan Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I doubt whether that will occur in most cases involving a small number of performers, but is he really suggesting to the House that he is against expense being incurred if there is a serious public safety risk that warrants an extra fire door being put in?

Malcolm Moss: I am not against measures for public safety, but I have been through a list of Acts of Parliament that deal with noise and safety and which cover most of those eventualities. The hon. Gentleman used the same argument in Committee and I repeat what I said then: we are not arguing that there should not be proper safety measures, but countless existing laws should take care of that situation. Why are we overburdening this sector of society with even more layers of bureaucracy?

Kim Howells: If that is the case and if all those laws are a terrible bureaucracy that will put off venue holders from allowing such events to happen, why does the Musicians Union have a code of practice on its website? It urges its members to insist on that code being used at existing venues to ensure that the inadequacies of the current system do not result in lots of injuries to its members, let alone to audiences that may pack in there. Why does the Musicians Union feel that that is necessary?
	The hon. Gentleman is now the great champion of the Musicians Unionit is wonderful to see Tories behaving in this wayso perhaps he will tell us why the need for additional safeguards has been mentioned on that website. The union insists on those safeguards because the existing system is not good enough to protect its members.

Malcolm Moss: I must admit that I have not seen that section of the website, so I am most grateful to the Minister for forcefully pointing it out to me. However, I suspect that what is on that website is what I would call common-sense remarks saying, If you are playing at any venue, be it a pub or anywhere else, make sure that the sockets and electrics are okay. Obviously, that will affect your equipment. It is common sense to recommend such things to those people.
	The Minister may confirm otherwise, but I am sure that the website does not say that people must put the appropriate legislationthe Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, for exampleon the table in front of the landlord and say, Right, tell me whether you comply with all this before I start playing my oboe. I do not think that that is the case. Common-sense advice is being given to those who are involved.

Roger Williams: There is considerable concern in my constituency over events such as the Brecon jazz festival. The Government seem to be punishing the Musicians Union for being prudent in looking after the interests of its members.

Malcolm Moss: I agree that the Musicians Union is being prudent, but there is a serious ramification if that jazz festival is being affected.

Bob Blizzard: I am a regular visitor to the Brecon jazz festival, which is a fantastic event, and I am only sorry that I cannot attend this year. I cannot believe that the event is not already licensed. Although parts of my speech will agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I cannot believe that the Brecon jazz festival is threatened by the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: I must make another admission: I have not been to that jazz festival, so I am unable to comment on it in any shape or form.

Kim Howells: I was at the first Brecon jazz festival and I have been to virtually every one since. Will the hon. Gentleman take this from me? If the pubs and the other venues in Brecon were not licensed, the Brecon jazz festival would never have taken place. He is bound to know that after 60 hours of Committee sittings. If he does not know it, he ought to be ashamed of himself.

Malcolm Moss: I do not want to challenge the Minister, but perhaps he will point out the column of Hansard in which the Brecon jazz festival was mentioned in Committee. I do not remember it being mentioned. [Interruption.] Oh, it was, was it?

Kim Howells: I am sure that the festival was mentioned, but not as often as the Isle of Wight. The hon. Gentleman knows exactly what I mean: any venue where more than two musicians are playing has to have an entertainments licence under current law. If he believes that that is not true, perhaps he should stand up, say so and tell me how the Brecon jazz festival continues to thrive year after year.

Malcolm Moss: Who mentioned the Brecon jazz festival in the first place? I have not been, I am sure that it is administered and organised absolutely to the letter of the law, and I want to move on.
	Let me end by quoting from a report published today or yesterday by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, entitled Scrutiny of Bills Further Progress. Page 17 contains a couple of short paragraphs in heavy type which deal with the wonderful Bill that we are discussing. The Committee says
	We take the view that there is a significant risk that the proposed system of exemptions from the licensing requirements and from the applicable fees as currently set out in the Licensing Bill might: give rise to an incompatibility with the right to be free of discrimination in respect of the enjoyment of the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief under ECHR Articles 9 and 14 in so far as the exemption is given to premises used principally for the purposes of religion, or occupied by people or organisations on account of their religious beliefs or practices, and is denied to premises used principally for secular purposes, or occupied by people or organisations without a religious affiliation; and
	this bit is wonderful; it should be on the front pages of all tomorrow's newspapers
	leave a patchwork of different licensing requirements without a coherent rationale, calling in question the existence of a pressing social need for the restriction on freedom of expression through a licensing regime for public entertainment, and so undermining the Government's claim that such a licensing regime is a justifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression under ECHR Article 10.2. We draw these concerns to the attention of each House.
	I am happy to have helped to draw them to the attention of this House in particular.
	As I said earlier, amendment No. 63 is similar to an amendment that was passed in the other place and subsequently thrown out. We shall return to the issue again and again, because unless the Government have some bright ideas at the eleventh hourwhich I suspect they will notthis seems to be the best way of exempting small live-music events from the draconian measures in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 109 is also similar to an amendment passed in the other place and removed in Committee. We cannot see why, if village and parish halls and community centres are to be exempt at least from fees, a similar exemption cannot be applied to educational establishments.

Andrew Bennett: I should declare at the outset that I am a member of the Folklore Society, and that my wife is involved with its journal.
	I plead with the Minister to ensureby amending the Bill if necessarythat traditional folk performances are not stamped out. Most have survived efforts to stamp them out by Cromwell and the Puritans, and by landlords and squires in the 17th and 18th centuries. They have survived the Victorian period, and all the commercial pressures. Their activities tend to be on a small scale.
	I was told by people involved with the Bill that many such folk performances would not require licensing, and would therefore not be caught by the Bill. I am not sure about that. I was told that there would be no problem because these were spontaneous events. It seemed that if some of us persuaded the Minister to celebrate after Third Readingif we went into one or two pubs, some songs were sung, a bit of music was played, perhaps a little play was put on about the Minister's performance todayall that would be perfectly all right, because the performance would be spontaneous.

Kim Howells: I am happy to confirm that it would indeed be all right.

Andrew Bennett: If someone passed around a pint pot, asking for contributions so that the Minister could be presented with a small token of esteemperhaps a little more drinkthere would, again, be no difficulty. A good many folk performances are not very different from that, but they cannot be said to be spontaneous, because they have been taking place for at least 400 years.

Lembit �pik: Wales in general and mid-Wales in particular are awash with performances of this kind. They tend to take place weekly. I sometimes play the harmonica at The Grapes in Newtown: the Minister is welcome to come and enjoy the performance. It can hardly be described as spontaneous, however, as people come along every week to participate. The performers, and indeed the publican, could be in breach of the law without a licence.

Andrew Bennett: I do not want to be drawn into that argument. I want to concentrate on performances with a long history. I see a series of anomalies. It would be easy for the Government to exempt such historic events. Some appear to be exempted already. I am not sure what is happening to the rush-cart ceremony, which concludes with rushes being taken into a church. Presumably it has already been exempted. However, similar events with no religious connotation would probably be covered by the Bill, which worries me.

Kevan Jones: If my hon. Friend was playing the trumpet, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) was playing his harmonica and, lo and behold, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) was playing another instrument, would they not need a licence now?

Andrew Bennett: Yes, but in the case of many traditional performances the two-in-a-bar rule has been taken into account. We tend to see a fiddler and someone playing another instrument during pace-egging, souling and similar activities. The Minister must ensure that such traditional events are exempt.
	I understand that the Shrove Tuesday football matches are not covered by the legislation. I find that amazing. Huge numbers of people participate in the Haxey Hood football matches, which are far more violent than modern organised rugby matches, but they do not require a licence. Anyone going into the pub to do some singing in order to raise money to pay for the Hood, however, would be caught by the Bill.

Kevan Jones: No, he would not.

Andrew Bennett: I will not go into the matter with my hon. Friend, but I beg the Minister to tell me why, for instance, the Haxey Hood, the pace-eggers, the Britannic coconut dancers, the various groups of rush-bearerssome of whom do not go into churchesthe Abbots Bromley horn dance and the souling at Antrobus will not need licences.
	Some of those groups have no interest in publicity; they simply want to continue a tradition that has gone on for a long time. Will the Minister therefore give an assurance that those people will not be harmed by the legislation?

Nick Harvey: This group of amendments is useful, as the subjects that the amendments cover cut to the heart of the Bill's difficulties and the objections raised to it. The Government would be well advised to accept as many of the amendments as possible, and if they are not convinced by the letter, they should accept the spirit of a good number of them.
	Amendment No. 64, the first in the group, is particularly useful. The Government accepted the principle of incidental music, or music secondary to the principal business being carried out in particular premises, as a basis for exemption. However, I believe that the Minister's explanation in Committee of what constitutes incidental activity undid some of the good. The amendment is pertinent in focusing specifically on advertisement. If we take the view that any activity that is advertised cannot, by dint of its advertisement, be deemed secondary or subsidiary to the principal activity, it will not turn out to be much of a concession or exemption at all.
	I can think of several pubs in my own constituency that put out informal advertisements, perhaps on blackboards, announcing that they have live music every Friday night or Sunday lunchtime or whenever. I contend that that is incidental to the principal business of selling drink or food. When the Government first made the concession, I did not believe that such pubs would be caught out by dint of advertising, but the Minister's statements in Committee led us to that view. I readily grant the Minister the opportunity to put the record straight.

Kim Howells: I am always pleased to put the record straight for the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). The Bill does not exclude entertainment from the possibility of exemption on incidental grounds merely because it is advertised. If music is advertised, it may make it less likely to be incidental, but it certainly does not exclude advertised music from being defined as incidental. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.

Nick Harvey: I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record, because there has been an increasing tendency recently when matters are brought to court to pore over the proceedings of Standing Committees. It was my understanding that the Minister was leading us down that path in Committee, but I am pleased to hear what he has just said. I am sure that he is right: there is nothing in the Bill that places advertising on the wrong side of the exemption. It was more the commentary around it in Committee that worried me. To hear what he has just said on Report is most helpful.

Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his patience. Let me expand a little and say that it will be a matter of judgment both for the venue ownerif the hon. Gentleman will allow me to use that expressionwho has to take a decision about how he presents the entertainment, and for the licensing authority, which may have to decide whether the principal attraction is the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) playing his harmonica in Newtown or the food and drink sold at the venue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the judgment should be decided on a case-by-case basis. The strength is that it allows for flexibility, so a venue is not necessarily excluded from an exemption simply because his hon. Friend is playing an incidental harmonica.

Nick Harvey: I favour a flexible approach and if we have established that a function does not fall on the wrong side of the line by dint of advertising alone, I greatly welcome it.

Lembit �pik: I can assure the Minister that, to the best of my knowledge, not a single person has ever visited The Grapes simply to hear my harmonicathe opposite is more likely. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) agrees that the Minister's seminal clarification is important to the example that I raised. In the light of that significant reassurance, does my hon. Friend accept that advertising does not necessarily exclude live performance from being denied a licence where it is fairly clear that a performance has not been billed as the main attraction or reason for visiting a tavern?

Nick Harvey: I am also pleased to note another attempt to give exemptions to small events. The suggestion that events be made slightly smaller is realistic, because I am not convinced that the initial efforts on small events defined them as small enough. I hope that the Government will give further consideration to that perfectly sensible proposal even now.
	Amendment No. 132 deals with the anomaly of television and radio receivers. Many people outside the House made the pointand I did the same in Committeethat it is odd that a pop concert on a large television set with big speakers would not require a licence, whereas two or three performers standing close by and producing noise at much lower decibel levels would require one. The Government argued throughout that they did not want to introduce additional burdens of regulation in areas where they currently do not exist. In a manner of speaking, amendment No. 132 steps into that territory. It has the useful benefit of highlighting again that there is something nonsensical about the inconsistent treatment in parts of the legislation.
	Amendment No. 105 deals with traditional folk performances. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) proposed what many would regard as a simple way of dealing with the vexed questions. Some of the difficulties to which he alluded remain real, because we have not had satisfactory answers to them. In the case of Morris dancers or other performers who are touring from one place to another, we have established that their activities wouldwhether by temporary event notices or premises licencesneed to be licensed. If people are to perform far and wide and their activities are licensable, I can see them getting tied up in enormous amounts of red tape and, indeed, expense. No one believes that such traditional folk performers cause a public nuisanceor anything to which the public might take exceptionso something along the lines of the amendment might well provide a good solution for the Government at this late stage.

Adrian Sanders: Unless the Bill is changed, is there not a danger of giving local authority licensing officers enormous powers to determine who and what activity is or is not licensable? I have severe doubts about whether such officers will exercise their powers in the way that the Minister hopes they will.

Nick Harvey: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If, in the early days of the legislation coming into force, local authorities held that various activities required a licence, I would be concerned that it might have an adverse effect. My fear is that some of the traditional groups that tour the country entertaining in one place or another will begin to lose the will to continue and give up the ghost.

Kevan Jones: I thought that the Liberal Democrats were the party of local government. Each local authority will have to produce a locally determined licensing policy, which will be able to reflect local circumstances, such as the prevalence of folk music and other interests.

Nick Harvey: Local authorities will be required to present local policies, but they will have to accord with the legislation and the objectives mapped out in it. Some of these traditional groups move from village to village, and they might move from one local authority area to another, with the real danger that the whole process becomes so cumbersome that they conclude that it is not worth their while. The Government would do well to consider the amendment. I appreciate that the list in amendment No. 105 cannot be deemed to be exclusive, and no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) would wish to include wassailing. However, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish attempts to cover that problem by including the words
	other traditional folk performances of a similar character.
	I suspect that lawyers will make a lot of money arguing that all sorts of other things fulfil those criteria, so I do not claim that the amendment is perfect. However, the Government would be well advised to try to address the point it makes.
	I would welcome clarification from the Minister on the question of educational establishments, as mentioned in amendment No. 109. What is the Government's position? I understood that they had agreed the principle of some exemption, and I am confused about what they now propose to allow.
	The amendments suggest various forms of exemption for various forms of entertainment and they encapsulate the concerns that have been raised in the months of the Bill's passage through Parliament. They include some ideas that the Government would be well advised to adopt, even at this late stage, to try to prevent the Bill from having all sorts of unfortunate unforeseen effects on and consequences for areas of public life that no one would wish to see wither, but which could be in genuine danger.

Diana Organ: The amendments cover forms of exempted entertainment and I wish to raise the issue of a form of entertainment that is very popular in pubs and clubs in the midlands and north of England, but which is subject to hardly any licensing or regulationand I and many others are very concerned by that. I refer to stage hypnosis. Hypnosis is a complex phenomenon, in which the subject is put into a state of heightened concentration and becomes greatly suggestible.
	The practitioner of stage hypnosis may have had only half an hour of tuition. Guidelines have been laid down for those using hypnosis as a form of entertainment. They include having to remain on the premises for half an hour after the event, or having to have public liability insurance. In most cases, the activity is subject to very little regulation, but it can do huge damage to members of the audience. People have been known to die a few hours after being subjected to stage hypnosis. Others have had their lives completely traumatised.
	The Bill is welcomed by many people in the music and entertainment industry, because it is a complete overhaul of our archaic licensing laws. The Bill will introduce a 21st century licensing framework for an industry that is important to many of us, be it through music or any other form of entertainment. Many aspects of the Bill have been highly controversial, but I wish to point out to the Minister that it contains no regulation for stage hypnosis.
	People who have had a couple of hours' training in hypnotism can be let loose on an audience and can do incalculable damage, because they may not have asked the audience if anybody suffers from epilepsy or schizophrenia, or whether anyone has suffered a recent trauma or is on medication. All those factors can have a detrimental effect if the person is hypnotised. I wish that I had been able to raise the issue earlier in the Bill's progress, because a constituent of mine, Mr. Robert Mitchell, has suffered great trauma because of stage hypnosis. He was hypnotised in the name of entertainment, at a sales conference at a hotel in the west midlands, and it has wrecked his life, including his working life. I hope that the Minister will find a way, if necessary though other legislation or orders, to reconsider the regulation of that, at present, unlicensed activity.

Andrew Turner: This group of amendments should be called the Punch and Judy amendments. I am sure that the Government had the best of intentions when bringing forward the Bill. The intention was deregulatory, and aimed to provide a single route for application for licences, instead of the multiple routes we have at present. However, those who were members of the Committee can testify that there is no coherent thread running through the Government's decisions about what should and what should not be licensed. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) illustrated that point perfectly. The application of the licensing objectives laid down at the beginning of the Bill is inconsistent with regard to the content of schedule 1.
	I shall refer in particular to amendments Nos. 132, 105 and 160. As the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) pointed out, amendment No. 132 tries to pin down the Government on why it should be a requirement for films to be licensed when it is not necessary to license big-screen television. Both forms of entertainment might produce the same amount of volume and be watched on the same size screen in the same premises by the same number of people, with the same effect on those living in the area. It is entirely inconsistent for broadcast television not to be licensed and I hope that the Minister will explain why that is the case.

Kim Howells: rose

Andrew Turner: I give way to the Minister, but I wish first to echo my hon. Friend's congratulations to him on his new appointment.

Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman doubly, for giving way and for congratulating me. I am chuffed that he did so. He knows that there are specific reasons why the exhibition of films in film theatres is licensed. Those reasons date back to the early days of film when the film stock and projectors used were liable to burst into flameand often did. As a consequence, the exhibition of films was governed by very specific laws. That did not happen with television, as the hon. Gentleman also knows. The Bill is deregulatory in intent, and we did not wish to extend legislation to cover areas that are currently not regulated. That is the reason for the apparent anomaly.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for that explanation. He has demonstrated that the Bill will not introduce 21st century regulation for entertainmentas the hon. Member for Forest of Dean suggested. In fact, it will retain early 20th century regulation for no better reason than that cinematograph projectors used to burst into flame. I accept that there is another reason, to do with the regulation of what is shown by the projectors.
	If it is merely intended to protect children and other youngsters from seeing films that are unsuitable, film entertainment does not need to be licensed in the panoply of ways that will be required as a result of its inclusion in schedule 1. That is my first point, and I should be very happy if the Minister is able later to provide an explanation that defeats it.
	I am glad to support amendment No. 105, tabled by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). I hope that the words
	traditional folk performances of a similar character
	may extend to Punch and Judy shows. The Bill makes it a requirement that morris-dancing in pub car parks, on village greens, under oak trees and in a multitude of other locations must be licensed. It also means that Punch and Judy shows will have to be licensed.

Adrian Sanders: A Punch and Judy proprietor in my constituency entertains many children every day in the summer months, and he is concerned about whether he will require a licence in order to perform or whether the local authority will need a licence in order for him to perform on its premisesin this case, a beach in my constituency.

Andrew Turner: My constituent Mr. David Randini is equally concerned for the same reasons. I see no reason for them to be concerned about whether they must be licensed: the Bill is absolutely clear, and they do. A Punch and Judy show is
	a performance of a play
	under paragraph 2(1)(a) of schedule 1. It
	takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of entertaining that audience.
	That is why Punch and Judy shows take place, and they will, therefore, be a licensable activity. They will have to be licensed.
	The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), now not in his place, suggested that licensing authorities could get around that by producing a licensing policy. I am afraid that the hon. Member for North Devon was right to respond by saying that the licensing policy must be within the law. If the Bill is passed, the law will be what is contained in schedule 1. We cannot avoid the need to licence a Punch and Judy show by writing a slightly vague licensing policy.
	The hon. Member for North Durham, whom I am pleased to see returning to the Chamber, has repeatedly said, in Committee and this evening, that most of the things to which I refer have to be licensed already, and that there is therefore no greater licensing requirement. I hope that I have represented him correctly; he smirks, but I am sure that he means it as a nod. Perhaps such entertainments should be licensed, but the fact is that they are not. I discussed that with the chief executive of my own local authority, who was surprised to discover that morris-dancing would have to be licensed under the Bill. He was even more surprised to discover that the Minister believed that morris-dancing was already a licensable activity. The Isle of Wight council does not license morris-dancing. I hope that it never has to do so.
	Newcastle city council, on which the hon. Member for North Durham was chairman of the public health committee, may have licensed morris-dancers, pace-eggerswhatever they may beand Punch and Judy shows, if they were fortunate enough to have such things on the banks of the Tyne. However, such activities are not licensed by every authority in whose areas they take place. That is the problem.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman seems to be telling the House that a local authoritynamely, the Isle of Wightwas ignorant of the law. Consequently, he says, it was an exemplary local authority in that it did not attempt to license and monitor particular activities, including, in his example, morris-dancing. Is he saying that when the House considers law, we should not change it if local authorities such as his have a chief executive who clearly does not understand his role? Is he suggesting that we should try to pretend that the law that exists does not in fact exist just because a local authority for whatever reasonwhether it turns a blind eye or is unaware of the lawdoes not carry out its statutory functions? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying?

Andrew Turner: No, he is not. Nor is he saying that the Isle of Wight council is an exemplary authority. He is saying merely that if that is what happens in one council, it may well happen in other local authorities too. It is because the law is not properly observed that people feel that the Bill is not a deregulatory measure. I am not arguing that the Minister's intentions are not pure; they are, I am sure, as pure as the driven snow. The problem is that morris-dancing is not at present licensed in many parts of the country, so far as I can judge from representations made to me. After the Bill becomes law, it will have to be licensed, as will Punch and Judy shows. I cannot understand why the Minister wants to go down in history as the man who wanted to regulate Punch and Judy shows.

David Heath: Is not the history entirely irrelevant? We have before us a Bill that does things that many Members of this House believe to be foolish and unnecessary. For that reason, we should argue that its foolish and unnecessary elements should be left out.

Andrew Turner: That is a better argument than the one that held the Isle of Wight council up to ridicule and contempt.

Kim Howells: This is absurd. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) should know better than to say what he said. He knows that the law exists as it is; there is no way around that. In attempting to put the law regarding public entertainment on a much better basis, we believe that we will improve the situation. We shall not do that by pretending that the current law does not exist. Just because a local authority, perhaps for the best of reasons, may not enforce itI hope, in fact, that lots of local authorities will in future decide to exempt all sorts of activitieswe cannot pretend that the law is not what it is. That is complete nonsense.

Andrew Turner: The Minister is going down a dangerous road. He hopes that many local authorities will in future decide to exempt

Kim Howells: As they do now.

Andrew Turner: I agree; they do now. They may decide to do so, or they may exempt things out of ignorance, but they do exempt things now. The Minister is saying that many local authorities will be able to decide to exemptHansard will show whether I have understood his words correctlyactivities of the sort that we are discussing. However, under the Bill, local authorities will not have the power to exempt such activities. Either they are licensable activities, or they are not.

Adrian Sanders: Clearly, local authorities that are not enforcing the law do not necessarily do so in ignorance. They have a duty to enforce the law when the law breaking is pointed out. The fact that no one has pointed it out and that the law is not known means that such activities have been able to go ahead. That is not an exemption, but under the new Bill, when the new law is brought to everyone's attention, there will be a blanket ban on activities that have been taken for granted.

Andrew Turner: I am sorry that the Minister finds my argument either difficult or dull

Kim Howells: Just daft.

Andrew Turner: I am sorry, but it is not a daft argument. We have the opportunity to decide whether Punch and Judy shows will be licensable in future. That is what the amendments provide for. My amendment No. 160 provides for that in a different way.
	Whether we describe the Bill as regulatory or deregulatory is irrelevant to its content. Its content is absurd because, as the Minister said in Committee, the Government would certainly encourage local authorities
	to obtain premises licences for public spaces . . . where there is any demand by groups of dancers, folk singers or anyone else who wanted to use that area.[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 May 2003; c. 449.]
	The Minister believes that such activities are licensable.
	Once the Bill becomes law, there will be guidance from the Department in the law. Conferences of local authority licensing officers will be held; they will attempt to interpret and assist local authorities in implementing the law, but they cannot amend schedule 1only we and those in another place can do that, and we should be doing so tonight.

Bob Blizzard: I want to speak to amendment No. 161, which I tabled in order to revisit some of our arguments and debates in Committee on this part of the Bill.
	On Thursday, when I tabled the amendment, I thought that I would have to be careful not to try the patience of my hon. Friend the Minister too much when I was trying to persuade him to reconsider certain matters. Then, when I looked at the No. 10 Downing street website on Friday afternoon, I thought that it would be even more important to put my arguments because a new Minister would be in charge of the Bill. However, my hon. Friend is still with us and I am glad about that. I hope not to try his patience but I want to have one more go at putting my case.
	As everyone realises, the aim of the Bill is to deregulate and simplify, and much of it does so. However, in at least one sphere it extends regulation to a currently unregulated activity: small performances, especially musicsmall gigs. It is no surprise that, when the Government try to extend regulation to an unregulated sector, there is immediate concern. My concern is that the Government have not yet provided evidence of the need to regulate such activities. People are asking whether the Bill's response is really proportionate to whatever complaints may have been made. I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has carried out a study into noise and licensing reform. Can the Minister tell us about the progress of that study? Was it taken into account in formulating the measure?
	Concern turned into vociferous opposition from some quarters when it was discovered that big-screen broadcast entertainmentvideo jukeboxes and sports barswould not be licensable and that there would apparently be no limit on amplification. In many cases, such entertainment would be a larger and louder event than the kind of small gigs that I am talking about.
	I do not want the Government to be ridiculed or criticised, and I am concerned that that may happen. We could end up with a situation where a large number of football fans were watching an England game on one of those big screens; they could enjoy England beating the opposition and erupt when David Beckham scored the winner. Whatever nuisance that event caused, it would not be licensable, yet the solo guitar strummer or the lone pianist would be licensable. The comments made during the debate about incidental entertainment have been helpful, although I am concerned about how different local authorities might interpret the provisions. That point leads me to the root of my concern.
	My concern was not provoked by the Musicians Union lobby. Some of that lobbying was over the top and has been counter-productive because it hardened attitudes. My concern stems from my experience of how local authorities can operate, especially in rural areas. As a councillor, and as leader of a district council for six years, I have seen what can happen on licensing and planning panelscertain aspects of planning legislation are comparable to these provisions.
	Such panels and committees can make a considerable meal of what are often not very substantial objections. As has been said, it is simple enough to tick the box; the problem is that ticking the box is merely the entry to a form of local authority decision making about which many people are fearful. I am concerned about that.
	There could be two unfortunate consequences. The first relates to rural areas. In such areas, there is not much musical entertainment. There are not many venues; they tend to be pubs, many of which operate the two-in-a-bar rule, with no entertainment licence. Currently, when an establishment in a village or market town wants to apply for an entertainment licence, there are often objections and opposition, because these days so many people move to the country for a quiet life. They then become rather over-anxious about what might happen at entertainment venues.
	A high proportion of elderly people live in the countryside and they get worried about bands of young tearaways attending such events. In my experience, they lobby their local councillor, which is not difficult because councillors, too, are concerned about events in the village. The councillor talks to people on the planning committee or the licensing committee. Sometimes the application is turned down; sometimes it is just caught up in the process or deferred. That is how a meal can be made out of such things, quite apart from the attention of over-zealous council officers who sometimes have their own way of making a mountain out of a molehill.
	There is a shortage of entertainment in rural areas, so young people go off to the towns, in carsbecause there is no other transportoften with disastrous consequences.

Kevan Jones: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about local licensing boards making a meal out of an Oxo cube, but if people are turned down for a licence, under the Bill, do they not have the right of appeal to the magistrates court?

Bob Blizzard: Yes, but quite a meal might have been created before that point. Appeal to the magistrates court would be yet another course in the meal. Currently, people do not get caught up in that process. I am concerned that some establishments that currently offer unlicensed entertainment may be turned down when they apply for a licence because there are objections. Furthermore, the whole process may take a long time.
	That brings me to my second point, which does not apply only to rural areas. If a landlord were not really bothered about whether he put on certain types of entertainment, he might not do so at all if he thought that he would have to follow a long and onerous road to get a licence. If he knew that he would have extra custom and make some money, he would go through the process.
	I am concerned about minority forms of music. Some hon. Members have mentioned folk music; as I said earlier, I am keen on jazz. Often it is not easy for folk and jazz musicians to find venues. Some landlords are not keen to put them on because they do not attract huge audiences. Lovers of that music are worried that some venues might get squeezed out if landlords feel that it is not worth getting a licence.

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that live music has been distorted for years in this country by the two-in-a-bar rule and that jazz has suffered especially. Is he suggesting that we should somehow defend the existing regime?

Bob Blizzard: indicated dissent.

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend is not suggesting that.

Bob Blizzard: My hon. Friend intervenes at just the right time, as I was about to say next that the two-in-a-bar rule is intellectually unsound. That regime is not defensible, but it has given rise to a certain de minimis arrangement. That is the purpose of amendment No. 161, as I believe that, if we are to have a modern and reformed licensing regime, we need to consider some form of de minimis arrangement that permits the activities that I have been talking about, allows them to continue and prevents them from being squeezed out.
	I have not tried to define the de minimis regime in amendment No. 161 because I am sure that I would be shot down if I did so. I tried to do so using various arguments in Committee, but I am trying to ensure that the sort of entertainment that takes place in rural areas at the moment and minority forms of music can continue, so I ask my hon. Friend to put on his thinking cap and, with his officials, try to come up with some de minimis regime.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent caseexactly the case that I would want to make if I had the opportunity. Is he not really saying that there is no need to introduce a remedy when there is no mischief, and that there is no mischief when there is no disturbance to the outside world, where no transgression of existing health and safety rules takes place and when a performance in a given venue causes no problem for anyone and those who want to witness the performance enjoy it?

Bob Blizzard: I am saying that there is no need to license every form of musical activity.
	I want to leave time for my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to all the points that have been made in the debate, so I just ask him to accept the case for a de minimis arrangement and to consider devising one. May I give an example? We have had live music in the House of Commons. It is not the order of the dayit may even be frowned uponbut a little live jazz was performed acoustically in the Terrace Pavilion last year. We had Andy Sheppard on sax and John Parricelli on guitar. Perhaps the sound was a bit distorted, but that happened and it did not disturb anything that goes on in this place; nor did it disturb the House authorities. In fact, people much appreciated the chance to listen to that music and enjoy it. If we can do that here, we should allow it to continue to happen in various establishments throughout the country.
	I hope that we can avoid the ridicule of the comparison between recorded, big screen, broadcast entertainment and small, live entertainment. I fear that, if we do not get this right, the arguments will come bouncing back to the House again.

Hywel Williams: I rise to speak because I am interested in promoting and enabling small-scale rural and Welsh language events. In particular, I refer to local eisteddfodau. The Minister will be very familiar with them, but I should explain to other hon. Members that they are essentially amateur, small-scale, competitive village events in singing, other forms of music and poetry. They are often held at community or village level, in a variety of venues, such as chapels, churches and chapel and church halls, so they are subject to certain legislative regulation, but they are also held in pubs and increasingly in hotels, as well as in schools.
	Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 are eminently sensible in situations where eisteddfodau should not be regulated. They often close down before 11.30 pm, and fewer than 200 people are usually involved. In fact, if everyone in most small rural communities attended, they would still involve fewer than 200 people.
	I wish to consider what would be achieved by regulating eisteddfodau in terms of the aims of the White Paper, which are to reduce crime and disorder. The Minister will know that, at the crowning or the chairing of the poet in an eisteddfod, the cry goes up, A oes heddwch?Is there peace? The audience must respond, Peace, or the event cannot continue. They are essentially peaceable events.
	What about encouraging tourism? Certainly, eisteddfodau are an untapped source of tourism for rural Wales. What about reducing alcohol misuse? They are very often teetotal. What about encouraging rural self-sufficient communities? Eisteddfodau should be encouraged, as an obvious example of what can happen in self-sufficient rural communities. Eisteddfodau are not a problem, and they should be exempted from the Bill.

Kim Howells: We have had an excellent debate on this set of amendments. Before I address amendment No. 64, with which the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) opened the debate, let me say that I accept and understand completely much of what has been said. The Government amended the Bill in Committee to exempt from the provision of regulated entertainment incidental live music in certain circumstances in response to concerns raised in another place. The exemption relating to incidental music represents a major deregulation from current licensing controls. It was part of a package of concessions that we have made since the Bill was introduced to broaden the significant liberalisation of the entertainment licensing regime that it is designed to bring about.
	Some of the other concessions in that package include: exempting places of public religious worship; amending the Bill to make it clear that entertainers who simply perform at unlicensed venues and do no more in respect of the entertainment will not commit an offence; announcing that we will exempt church halls, village halls and other community buildings from fees associated with regulated entertainment and, in a similar exemption, entertainment provided at schools and sixth-form colleges by the institution.
	The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire asked a valid question, which we debated at length in Committee, about higher and further education institutions, and I want to repeat that, in the long-distant past, I remember going to lots of gigs with very big bands and very big audiences at universities. Indeed, that is one of the most lucrative parts of the entertainment trade. I am sure that he would have doubts about trying to compare what may happen in a primary or secondary school hall with the kinds of eventssometimes enormous rock concertsthat can take place in our larger universities.
	We will certainly use the accompanying guidance to underscore the requirement that only necessary and proportionate conditions are attached to licences. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) expressed fears that we would let loose local authorities on the poor venue owners, for whom life would be made unbearable. I want to make several responses to that. First, it is vital that the House should know that this Government believe wholeheartedly in encouraging live music, drama and dance. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), we will ensure that there is no doubt whatever in the minds of local authorities, either in relation to the statutory guidance that we will issue or discussions that the DepartmentI keep calling it my Department, but it is not my Department any morefor Culture, Media and Sport will have, and have had, with local authorities, that we expect cultural expression to be an important part of the life of every area, and that they will be expected to encourage it everywhere. That is an important consideration. I will respond more specifically to the points that he raised later, but I want to place them within that context.
	We have exempted live music to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity, which is not itself entertainment or the provision of entertainment facilities as described in the Bill, bringing it into line with the exemption for incidental recorded musicsuch as that provided through juke boxes and, of course, the dreaded muzak, which one might encounter in lifts or hotel lobbiesin the Bill as originally drafted. Hon. Members might question that last point, but I am afraid that, however much I might wish it to do so, the Bill does not make distinctions on grounds of taste. That is a serious issue. Every example about which we have heard tonight is of a civilised group playing quiet music with moderate amplification. No one mentioned the fact that if we take away the two-in-a-bar rulewhich I am entirely in favour of doingthere is nothing to stop a suddenly unregulated venue from putting on music that might have huge amplification. Were that to happen, I can guarantee that the welter of letters that some right hon. and hon. Members have received from some constituents, mostly those in the Musicians Union, will appear as a mere trickle compared with the letters that they will start to get from residents who will have no defence whatever from bands playing in unregulated venues at such volume that they are blown into next week. If we are to be honest, we should mention that.
	In Committee, much of the debate focused on the definition of incidental live music, as well it might. As is often the case, the Government amendment reflected the spirit of concerns raised by certain lobby groups. In response to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, I accept none of his criticisms about not having consulted and discussed matters with lobby groups from all manner of music and entertainment sectors. I spent many hours doing so, and many more hours answering written submissions from those sorts of people when it was impossible to meet them. For example, there was a great deal of lobbying at a late stage from individuals such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about giving historic churches the same kind of exemption
	It being Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Questions necessary to dispose of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 295.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: No. 63, in page 112, line 18, at end insert
	'Small eventslive music
	(1) The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act where
	(a) the number of listeners or spectators present does not exceed 200 at any one time, and
	(b) the entertainment ceases no later than 11.30 pm.
	(2) The provision of entertainment facilities solely for the purposes of entertainment described in subparagraph (1) is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.
	(3) Nothing in this paragraph shall be read as rendering invalid or otherwise affecting any provision of, or any regulation made under, any other legislation that applies to the entertainment, the entertainment facilities or the premises on which the entertainment is to take place.'.[Mr. Moss.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 284.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 16
	  
	Applicant For Premises Licence

Kim Howells: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 9, line 35, leave out paragraph (h).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 91.

Kim Howells: The Government have tabled amendments to the Bill exempting premises that, at the time the activity is carried out, are permanently or temporarily occupied for the purposes of the armed forces. That will have the effect of exempting service messes and certain other armed forces facilities from the provisions of the Bill. We recognise the special status of messes and other service facilities. Messes are effectively the homes of many of the men and women serving in the forces. The exemption also takes into account the unique operational circumstances of the forces, especially the impracticalities associated with the highly mobile nature of service life. Activities in messes and the other armed forces facilities concerned are already subject to Queen's regulations and locally issued service instructions. The Government consequently take the view that they should be treated exceptionally.

Mark Hoban: Adjacent to my constituency is a naval base, where there is a theatre that is occasionally used by community groups as a venue for fundraising. Will the Minister explain whether use by community groups for fundraising purposes is also exempt under the amendments?

Kim Howells: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I shall certainly look into the matter for him to see whether the theatre is technically part of the mess. Perhaps he would be kind enough to furnish me with some details, and I shall certainly ensure that the situation is checked out.
	Although the Bill would have provided for certain premises to be exempt from licensing control on the authority of a Cabinet Minister on grounds of national security, in the current climate that would have placed a considerable burden on the armed forces in identifying and exempting a very large number of individual premises.
	I commend the amendment to the House.

Malcolm Moss: The Opposition concur with much of what the Minister has said, and acknowledge that the armed forces should have exceptional provisions. The Government amendments seem to achieve that. However, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Amendment No. 91 speaks of temporary arrangements or premises. Does that cover the armed forces on manoeuvre and in encampment? Does it cover the Territorial Army, which does not occupy its premises frequently and for prolonged intervals? Will the Minister elaborate and confirm that the amendments cover all those eventualities?

Kim Howells: I am certainly happy to confirm that the amendments would cover those situations and eventualities.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister reflect on whether it is entirely appropriate that such premises should be exempt? Of course I accept that, if they are being used by the armed forces for purposes connected with the defence of the realm, it is understandable that they should be exempt. I am not sure how far down the line that should apply, however, such as in relation to the territorial forces or an Army cadet hut. I am glad to see the Minister shake his head on the latter point. Territorial Army premises, including camps, sites for camps, shooting ranges and the like appear to be covered by the exemption. Will he confirm that that is the case?

Kim Howells: I would appreciate some detailed information on the sort of sites that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I can confirm that we shall not be making exemptions for cadet huts, or, I would think, for some of the sites where there are recruiting centres for young people and so on. None the less, if he has got somewhere in mind, I shall certainly try to check out the situation, as I will the issue raised by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) concerning a theatre.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17
	  
	Application For Premises Licence

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 10, line 38, after 'premises', insert '(existing or proposed)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 42, in clause 28, page 16, line 34, at end insert
	'( ) An application under this section may also be accompanied by an operating schedule as defined in section 18(4) in respect of the premises licence for which application is to be made in due course, save that in the case of premises where the relevant licensable activities are to include the supply of alcohol there shall be no requirement when making application for a provisional statement to supply information concerning the proposed designated premises supervisor.'.
	No. 43, in page 16, line 37, after second 'completed', insert
	'prior to the coming into force of any new premises licence that may be granted'.
	No. 44, in page 16, line 39, at end insert
	'or any modified schedule that may subsequently have been approved by the relevant licensing authority under this provision.'.
	No. 45, in clause 30, page 18, line 3, at end insert
	'( ) A provisional statement issued under this section shall have effect for three years from the date of issue.
	( )(a) A person may at any time apply to the relevant licensing authority to modify the schedule of works or the provisional statement.
	(b) The Secretary of State may make regulations concerning the making of applications under this subsection and the circumstances in which they shall be advertised.'.
	No. 164, in clause 31, page 18, line 15, leave out from 'same' to end of line 21 and insert
	'or a similar form as the licence described in the application for a provisional statement, and
	(b) the application for that statement was accompanied by an operating schedule, and
	(c) the work described in the schedule of works accompanying the application for that statement or any modified schedule subsequently approved has been or will be satisfactorily completed prior to the coming into force of such premises licence as may be granted,
	representations made by any person in respect of the application for the premises licence are excluded representations for the purposes of section 18(6)(d) save for representations made under section 18(6)(c).
	( ) Where
	(a) the application for the premises licence is an application for a licence in the same or a similar form as the licence described in the application for the provisional statement, and
	(b) the application for that statement was not accompanied by an operating schedule, and
	(c) the work described in the schedule of works accompanying the application for that statement or any modified schedule subsequently approved has been or will be satisfactorily completed prior to the coming into force of such premises licence as may be granted,
	representations made by any person in respect of the application for the premises licence are excluded representations for the purpose of section 18(6)(d) if subsection (4) applies.'.
	No. 1, in clause 41, page 24, line 5, leave out subsection (5).
	No. 2, in page 24, line 7, leave out subsection (6).
	No. 3, in page 24, line 11, leave out subsection (7).
	No. 145, in page 32, line 18 [Clause 54], leave out 'Regulations' and insert 'The relevant licensing authority'.
	No. 146, in page 32, line 22, leave out 'Regulations' and insert 'The relevant licensing authority'.
	No. 147, in page 32, line 22, leave out 'the relevant licensing authority' and insert 'it'.
	No. 148, in page 32, leave out line 24 and insert
	'The relevant licensing authority shall prescribe'.
	No. 149, in page 32, line 28, at end insert
	'(5) Different amounts may be prescribed for different cases or classes of case.'.

Malcolm Moss: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 38, 42 to 45, 164 and 1 to 3, which were tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban).
	The amendments relate to the clauses dealing with provisional statements and provisional licences, as they may be called.
	Amendment No. 38 relates to clause 17, which is well ahead of the main clauses on provisional statements. It is probably the key amendment. The Government responded at quite a late stage to the representations that were made to them about provisional statements, indicating that they believed that the assurances sought by the trade and the industry were covered by the Bill as drafted.
	However, I have received at least 20 letters and approaches from a range of people in the business, including architects, designers, those in the licensed trade itself and those in the construction industry who are heavily involved in the construction of licensed premises, all of whom feel, even at this late stage, that the Government have not clarified the issue to their satisfaction. Amendment No. 38 would clarify their understanding of whether their applications could be either for existing or proposed developments, because all the relevant clauses after clause 17, which refers to applications for premises licenses, would cover applications for proposed developments, not just existing premises. The other amendments relate to clauses 28, 30, 31 and 41.
	When this part of the Bill was debated in the other place, the Government spokesman, Lord McIntosh, made some rather encouraging comments, as a result of which the Opposition withdrew their amendments and did not press them to a Division. Lord McIntosh's assurances were clear cut. He said:
	We need to examine the implications and talk to people involved in the industry and stakeholders before we reach a final decision but I am happy to take the matter away and consider it.
	He went on to say:
	I cannot promise to return with the amendment at Third Reading, or that an amendment on the face of the Bill will be necessary. However, we are certainly sympathetic to the objective behind the amendments.[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 February 2003; Vol. 645, c. 449.]
	What has happened following those assurances? First, the Department appears to have undertaken no consultation of any kind with the industry. No one had any idea what the Government would propose in Committee. In fact, we never reached the relevant clauses and amendments because the guillotine came down and we lost a whole raft of amendments on a part of the Bill that is important to the people whom I described. This is our first opportunity to debate amendments to an important part of the Bill.
	The Minister courteously and kindly wrote to me after the fall of the guillotine in Committee. In his long letter he precluded any amendment, and at that point no consultation had been carried out. Representatives of the industry belatedly got to discuss those matters with officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. They were asked to draft amendments, but given no guidance about what would be acceptable. How naive could they be? The Minister and the Department were not likely to point the industry in the right direction. The Government should have tabled amendments. I hope that they will do that at some stage, because only they know what is acceptable to them. That was the position a week or so ago.
	There is no formal way in which to reintroduce such a crucial issue into the debate in another place. The Minister may know better than me, but since the matter was not debated at length and voted on and no amendments were accepted there, I do not think that it can easily be reconsidered on Thursday when the Bill reverts to the other place. The Government, in the person of Lord McIntosh, undertook a duty to set out their reasoning and explain why they believe that no amendment is necessary and that the balance has been properly, fairly and adequately struck between the needs of the industry and those of residents in the vicinity of the proposed development.
	Current legislation allows a company to obtain a provisional licence for a new development from the magistrates court. Provided that all the works are completed in accordance with the relevant plans and permissions, the premises may automatically open on the completion of the development. Clause 31(3) allows a so-called relevant person, who is defined elsewhere in the Bill, to raise objections to the opening of licensed premises after construction, even if no objections were raised at the time of the operator's application for a provisional statement. It appears that objections can be made when an individual can show that he or she could not have raised an objection at the time of the original provisional statement or had a good reason for failing to do that.
	Objections can also be raised when a material change has occurred in the circumstances that relate either to the premises or
	the area in the vicinity of those premises.
	How on earth can an applicant, who will invest a lot of money, be sure that on completion of the premises there will not be a material change in the environment or the vicinityfor example, the construction of some new houses or a block of flats? How will the residents in the new houses view the application for the premises licence? If they table reasonable objections that are subsequently carried, the project could be placed in serious jeopardy.
	I have some examples that I would like to share with the House. Over the last five years, company No. 1I do not wish to mention any nameshas made approximately 20 applications for new licences. I shall not say precisely what kind of licences they were, but they certainly required a licence to sell alcohol associated with the mainstream activity involved. Those new licences resulted in an investment of more than 55 million. That figure does not include seven further projects that are currently in development, or the investment required for major redevelopment projects that do not require licensing applications. In terms of employment levels, each of the new premises will generate between 70 and 80 jobs. This is an example involving one particular company, in whose opinion a relocation would create a further 30 jobs.
	Company No. 2 has invested 70 million in new projects over the last three years, and intends to invest a further 30 million per annum over the next three years. This company employs about 400 external people annuallyprofessionals, builders, architects, designers and so onand directly creates 500 new jobs each year. I have been told by the industry that if we were to multiply those figures by about 50, that would account for all the companies in this particular business that are applying for licences and constructing licensed premises of one kind or another on an annual basis. Multiplying 30 million a year by 50 would give the huge total of 1.5 billion a year in the construction industry and associated professions and trades, just in this one area of creating new licensed premises.

Kevan Jones: My experience is that once a licensee or developer has been granted a provisional licence, the time that elapses between then and the development taking place and the premises opening is quite short. Obviously, the people who have made the investment want to get the place open as soon as possible. If there were great changes in circumstances or in the way in which an establishment was operated, surely it would be right that local people should have a say in the matter. Even if the decision were overturned at a subsequent hearing, those involved would still have the right to appeal to a magistrate, to argue the case that the decision was unfair.

Malcolm Moss: I can tell that the hon. Gentleman has not been anywhere near business, because what he has just said is nonsense. Nobody invests millions of pounds without certainty. The hon. Gentleman has just confirmed that there would be no certainty. He may well say that such premises go up quite quickly. I hope that they do, as that would negate some of the problems that the Bill, as it is currently written, seems likely to bring about. If, however, the construction period lasted for 18 monthsa big project could take that longthere could well be changes in the environment in the vicinity during that time. According to the Bill, people moving into the area who had not objected initiallybecause they were not there and did not know about the projectwill still have the right to raise objections under clause 31.
	We are not just talking about cash here, or about companies with resources from their profits to reinvest. We are also talking about banks being involved in substantial lending. I would submit that no bank is going to take on a project without the certainty of knowing that once the application for a provisional licence has gone through the normal procedures and been granted, it is inviolate, as it is at the moment.
	The industry is saying that it wants not only assurances from the Government that it will be all right on the night, but that it needs words in the Bill that make it absolutely clear cut and certain that what it is doing will come right in the end. The last thing a business wants is to incur extremely expensive legal bills in fighting its way through the courts because some local authority has given it a hard time over clause 31. The way in which the clause is written would probably deliver such a problem in some circumstances.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend has raised the point about the period over which those provisional licences can be in place. The shopping centre that is being built in my constituency has retail and leisure facilities, and one of the anchor tenants of that mixed-use development is a pub. It has taken two or three years to get to this stage, when the first sod is being cut. Clearly, that anchor tenant would want much more certainty than the Bill appears to give. Would my hon. Friend's amendment tackle that issue?

Malcolm Moss: Yes it would. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us that example, because that exactly illustrates what will happen if we do not amend the Bill.
	Things are even worse than I have said, as it is not only changing circumstances that can give rise to a late objection. According to the explanatory notes, somebody who happens to live in the area, but who was in hospital at the time of the application, would have reasonable excuse under clause 31(3)(a). Obviously being in hospital would be a reasonable excuse, as the person could not be there at the time to make the objection. That opens a Pandora's box whereby people can leap up at one remove or at the last minute to object to such developments.
	The words reasonable excuse are still in the Bill, despite our attempts to get them removed and despite the attempts of the other place, although the relevant amendments were not pushed to a vote. The definition of reasonable excuse leaves a lot to be desired and, of course, it is an entirely new concept. There is nothing akin to it in the licensing laws.

Adrian Sanders: Or in planning.

Malcolm Moss: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman refers to planning. I do not want to go into planning in particular, but he is right. The two applicationsone for the provisional statement or licence and one to the planners for the building itselfwould go hand in hand.

Adrian Sanders: There is an interesting confusion here, as the hon. Gentleman says. Two applications would go through to different parts of the council, but residents would have more rights in one area than in another.

Malcolm Moss: I am not sure that that is strictly true.

Adrian Sanders: Not if they were in hospital.

Malcolm Moss: I am sorry but I did not quite catch the drift of the hon. Gentleman's thinking. Yes, if people were in hospital they could not object to either, but of course they would have no reasonable excuse for opposing a planning application. I am with him, and I beg his pardon for going off on slightly the wrong tack.
	In addition, there does not appear to be a procedure that would allow any existing provisional licences obtained, say, during a transitional period, to be automatically converted to provisional statements. The proposals provide that the new licensing authority can have regard to an existing provisional licence, but it will not be automatically obliged to convert such a licence. That, too, will create significant risk and uncertainty for all those companies, as a development may be completed with the risk of losing the benefit of that original licence.
	Amendment No. 38 proposes a simple change in the wording of clause 17, which would probably sort out all the problems. Failing that, there are amendments Nos. 42 to 45 and 164. Under amendment No. 164, if the application for a provisional statement was accompanied by an operating schedule and the work described in the schedule of works accompanying the application has been satisfactorily completed,
	representations made by any person in respect of the application for the premises licence are excluded representations for the purposes of section 18 (6)(d).
	What the trade is telling us, and what I am now telling the Minister, is that if the Minister cannot live with amendment No. 38, amendment No. 164 would be a way of saying to businesses that are investing millions that if they provide operating schedules, the subsequent provisions relating to objections and reasonable excuses should fall by the wayside. Those in the industry would know that if they went through the required hoops they would achieve what they wanted.
	If there is no operating scheduleif a company has not gone into enough detail to convince the licensing authority that it has a clear idea of how it will operate once the building is up and running
	representations made by any person in respect of the application for the premises licence are excluded representations for the purpose of section 18 (6)(d) if 
	this is the key part
	subsection (4) applies.
	There are two separate approaches. One involves the operating schedule, and the provision of all the details of the club or pub's activities, opening hours and so forth, so that the local authority can go through all the necessary stages once the application has been received, as it would in the case of an application for an existing premises licence, and the company can be certain of its position fairly soon. Amendment No. 45 takes a different approach. It asks the Government, if they cannot live with some of the other amendments, to impose a time limit. It proposes that a
	provisional statement issued under this section shall have effect for three years from the date of issue.
	The amendment is really a back-stop. The other amendments are much stronger and we prefer them, but as we have got nothing from the Government so far we would be grateful if they accepted this one.
	In fact, I do not think that the Minister will give us anything tonight, for the simple reason that someone else will have to pick up the file later. No doubt he is under strict instructions to yield nothing.
	This issue is going to bounce back and forth. It is a key issue, and it is a tragedy that we did not have time to debate it in Committee. Assurances were given in the other place, by which the industry set great store. It is up to the Minister to answer my questions tonight, and to justify his case. The clauses relating to provisional statements will cause havocand I mean havocin the trade, according to those involved.
	If, as his officials are saying, clause 17 allows applications for proposed developments and there is no problem, why is there any need for clause 31(3), which allows latecomers the opportunity to object and could jeopardise extremely important investments? I leave the Minister with the thought that much money and many jobs are involved, and that the potential impact on tourism in many parts of the country is great. It would be tragic beyond words if, for the sake of a few words in the Bill, the industry were decimated.

Adrian Sanders: I shall be brief. The group of amendments includes one or two that add rather than reduce bureaucracyI support only those that attempt to reduce it. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) was right to talk about the provisions adding to the uncertainty for business, but that does not apply only to business: many public sector projects could be held up or prevented because of the uncertainty and additional risk that may be incurred. Public sector projects tied into external grant funding, either from central Government or Europe, could be at particular risk if protests were made about specific proposals. As a consequence of being turned down, the Government money could not be used in another way and the opportunity for public sector investment could be lost. It is not an issue for private sector business alone.
	I hope that the Government will consider the matter again. I am all in favour of the public having as much say as possible in respect of planning as well as in the provisions before us, but there is a danger of creating a position in which no one will take the risk to do anything for fear of being turned down. The balance is skewed against the development of public or private sector facilities. It is possible to have public input without adding additional risk.

Andrew Turner: I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 145, 146 and 147, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), who is not in his place at the moment.
	I am curious about why the Government believe that it is necessary to make regulations to provide for something set out so clearly in the Bill. The amendments would remove from the Government the obligation to make such regulations. If the Minister says in his response that there are different ways of making regulations to make provision for what is set out in clause 54(1)(a) and (b), subsections (2) and (3)(a) and (b) and that Ministers need more time to work out the best way of effecting those provisions, I will be interested to hear it.
	For my part, I believe that the clause is immensely clear, simple and brooks no variance of interpretation from what most of us would conclude from reading the words in the Bill. The amendments simply provide that, instead of regulations requiring applications to be accompanied by a fee and prescribing the level of fee, the local authority may require those applications and prescribe the amount of the fee.
	Instead of regulations requiring the holder of a premises licence to pay the relevant licensing authority an annual fee, the licensing authority itself may require the holder of a premises licence to pay the annual fee.
	The other issue in the amendment is the size of the fee, which may vary hugely from place to place. Local authorities are concerned that the fee set may be inadequate to meet their reasonable costs in licensing and enforcing the regulations made under the Bill. The Government have said that they wish to prescribe a scale of fees, and it is likelyperhaps the Minister will clarify the point in replythat that scale of fees will make it difficult to distinguish between different authorities and the costs associated with the work that they are doing. A licensing authority that spends a great deal of money advising applicants in advance of the licences about conditions that may be acceptable, and assists them in drawing up the statements that must accompany licences, will find it easier to deal with licence applications once they are lodged. However, a local authority that does not do that will find licence applications more difficult to deal with. Similarly, a local authority that does not spend much on enforcement will be able to make a profit from the fees prescribed by the Government, but it may not be providing a very effective service. However, a local authority that spends much time and energy on enforcement will find it necessary to charge a higher fee. I hope that the Minister will provide some clarification about the level and detail of the fees, and the extent to which they may vary from place to place.
	My second point was addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), and I wish to reinforce it. The comparison has been drawnand it is fairbetween the rights of someone who opposes a licensing application following a provisional statement and someone who is in hospital at the time that a planning application is made. There is no provision in planning law for someone to revisit an application after construction of a premises and say, Hang on, I was in hospital at the time of the application and I would not have agreed to the premises being provided for the purposes of a pub. Instead, I would like you to arrange them to be used for the purposes of a nursing home. That is not allowed in planning law, so why should it be allowed in licensing law? Why should someone who has been in hospital be able to say, Well, you may have invested 1 million or 2 million in building a night club, or a pub or a cinema, but I do not feel that it is appropriate for the premises to be used for those purposes, despite the fact that you made it clear all along that that was your intention.?

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman's example is rather frivolous and stupid, like many of the other examples that he gave in Committee and earlier tonight. If a provisional licence is granted by the licensing authority, the reasons for changing it would have to be fundamental, not the simple absence of the person from the first hearing. If the licensing authority overturned a provisional licence for frivolous reasons, the applicant would be able to take the issue to the magistrates, who would reverse the decision.

Andrew Turner: I accept that, but I am trying to understand exactly why it is necessary to have a two-stage procedure at all, without the clarity and guarantees that someone would need before undertaking an important investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested, people would not be willing to undertake such investments without reasonable certainty that the investment would be viable.
	One of the Bill's purposes is to encourage investment in the entertainment industry.

Kevan Jones: Is it not the case that the only occasion on which a licensing authority might revoke a provisional licence is when there are major changes in, for example, a development? Surely we should welcome that requirement. If a developer changes a proposal, local people should have a say.

Andrew Turner: Of course that is justified if there is a major change in what the hon. Gentleman and I have fallen into the trap of calling a provisional licence. The problem, uncertainty and fear for most developers is that the provisional statement will not be followed up by confirmation of a licence in broadly the same terms.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman should tell us what the difference is between that and the present situation. For example, if magistrates give a provisional licence and there are major changes, people can object when it returns for a full hearing at the magistrates court.

Andrew Turner: As I hoped I had pointed out in answering the previous intervention, where there are major changes, there should be a second bite at the cherry. Essentially, a new or different licence would be being asked for. People who undertake major changes in the course of construction do so at their own risk, as do people who depart from planning permissions in the course of construction. They have to ask either for an amended planning permission or a new one. I accept all that.
	The difficulty will arise when people construct premises broadly in line with the provisional statement only to find that there is a danger that the full licence will not be granted.

Kevan Jones: If a developer obtains a provisional statement for his licence and does exactly what he said he would do, the chances of any licensing authority overturning him would be very remote. If an authority did, the case would be thrown out when it went to a magistrates court.

Andrew Turner: The simple answer is that I do not know whether the chances of the statement being overturned are remote, and I certainly do not know whether such a decision would be overturned in a magistrates court. It has been known for control of a local authority to change in the course of construction of a major investment project. The representatives of the ward in which the project is being constructed may change. There is every possibility of a change being made between the provisional statement and the granting of the full licence. As to whether that is just, and as to whether the magistrates would throw a case out, I have no way of telling. What I do know is that anyone who intends to invest a large sum of money in a major project wants some certainty of achieving what the investment is intended to achieve. That certainty is not clear in the procedure set out in the Bill.
	If the Minister intends to say, as the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has implied, that a local authority would be unable to issue a licence in the terms of the provisional statement and that the magistrates would, or would be likely to, throw out a decision by a local authority not to issue such a licence in the terms of the original statement, I shall be likely to accept what he says

Kevan Jones: If an imaginary person has been in hospital and is the only person who comes forward to object to the provisional statement, and if the developer has done exactly what he or she said they would do, the idea of a licensing authority overturning the developer will be remote. If the case then went to a magistrates court, it would surely be very unlikely that there would be grounds for overturning the statement. Is that not the case at present with magistrates' provisional licences?

Andrew Turner: I cannot say what the position is now, or that it is as the hon. Gentleman has asserted, although I have no reason to argue with him.
	However, the rest of the hon. Gentleman's intervention was exactly the same as his previous intervention, so my answer is exactly the same. If, when the Minister replies to the debate, he tells us that there is no prospect of a local authority being able to refuse to issue a licence in the terms of the provisional statement and that, if it did so, the court would be extremely likely to throw out the decision, it will make me much happier than hearing it from the hon. Member for North Durham, expert though he must be by virtue of his former position in Newcastle.

Kim Howells: This is a large group of amendments dealing with various aspects of premises licences, provisional statements and fees. I shall do my best to cover that extensive ground.
	On provisional statements, the amendments address two matters, which the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) articulated well: the anxiety that an application for a premises licence could not be made in advance of a building being constructed, or of its imminent construction; and the desire to give developers greater confidence that their investment in any new development will be secure, by restricting the opportunity to make representations on an application for a premises licence.
	The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made a lot of sweeping statements about the fact that we had not listened to industry. In fact, the Department has held extensive consultations with the British Beer and Pub Association at official level. I, too, have met BBPA representatives to discuss their proposals since we gave undertakings to hold further consultationsalthough I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is listening.
	On amendment No. 38, nothing in the Bill prevents an application for a premises licence from being made in advance of a building being constructed or extended. The amendment would add the words existing or proposed to the description of the premises for which a plan must be provided with an application for a premises licence. The fact that under clause 17 a plan of the premises must accompany the application for a premises licence does not mean that the premisesa buildingmust currently exist. If the plan describes proposed premises, an application may be considered and, when granted, the premises licence could be given a future start date. It is not, therefore, necessary to state existing or proposed in the Bill.
	Clause 28 provides that where premises are being, or are about to be, constructed, extended or altered for use for licensable activities, a person interested in the premises may apply to the licensing authority for a provisional statement. Where that person is an individual he or she must be 18 or over. A provisional statement is a statement issued under clause 30 and provides those engaged in, or about to be engaged in, construction or development work at premises to be used for licensable activities with a certain degree of assurance about their potential trading conditions. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, that is where we enter difficult territory, because we are talking about balance. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) also recognised that fact.
	The matter is important because, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire told us, millions of pounds are involved. The hon. Member for Torbay rightly drew our attention to the fact that such money could come from public funds as well as from private investment. Developers or property owners who wanted to construct, alter or extend premises might be reluctant to invest their money if they had no degree of assurance that the premises could be used to carry out the intended business.
	An application for a provisional statement must be accompanied by a schedule of works, which must include a statement of the particulars of the premises and the licensable activities for which the premises are to be used. It must also include plans of the work being carried out and such other information as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.
	Amendments Nos. 42 to 44, in respect of clause 28, and amendment no. 45, in respect of clause 30, are at the heart of the revised procedures proposed by the businesses engaged in such developments. Before I explore the detail, I shall make some general points.
	If a developer knows precisely what licensable activities the development will be used for, what hours it will be open and who will operate it, it may be entirely possible for him to seek a premises licence. He would merely indicate that he did not want the licence to come into effect until a later date. Nothing in the Bill will prevent that, so provisional statements are relevant when there is a lack of certainty about precisely what the new premises will be used for ultimately and, for example, the hours during which activities will take place on the premises.
	We want businesses to have as much certainty as possible, so that their investments are as secure as possible, as early as possible, but the procedures must include a proper balance between the needs of the property developer and the needs and rights of the local community. Local residents have a right to have their voices heard and to have decisions made in the overall public interest. So in examining this group of amendments, it is important that the House consider that balance at all times.
	Let us remember that the justices have to declare a provisional licence final when the work has been completed, but they can, for example, examine the case afresh to decide whether the licence holder is a fit and proper person to hold a full justices' licence. So there is no absolute certainty under current licensing laws, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) have said.
	Even where a representation was made by those with a reasonable excuseperhaps they are new to an area or they have been in hospitalthat would not necessarily lead to the premises licence application being rejected, as my hon. Friend reminded us. A hearing would have to be held and representations taken into account in the context of the licensing objectives.
	Under amendment No. 42, an applicant could submit an operating schedule, as defined in clause 17(4), with an application for a provisional statement, save that, if the supply of alcohol were involved, he would not have to specify a designated premises supervisor. I have two points to make about that. First, amendment No. 42 is erroneously drafted and refers to clause 18, not clause 17, which would be correct. It is flawed on that basis alone. Secondly, if a developer were capable of preparing an operating schedule that far in advance, he could seek a premises licence, as I have already explained. I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will accept that important explanation as a comfort. The developer could specify any personal licence holder as the proposed designated premises supervisor and, where necessary, seek a variation of that name if the proposal changed by the time the building was constructed. So amendment No. 42 is both flawed and unnecessary.
	Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 would change the meaning of the phrase
	references to work being satisfactorily completed
	in clause 28, which covers
	work at the premises being completed in a manner which substantially complies with the schedule of works accompanying the application
	for a provisional statement. Under those amendments, that would be limited to
	work being completed prior to the coming into force of any new premises licence that may be granted in a manner which substantially complies with the schedule of works accompanying the application or any modified schedule that may subsequently have been approved by the relevant licensing authority under this provision.
	Those amendments, which have to be read with amendment No. 45, also appear to be flawed.
	Under amendment No. 45, the provision that would permit the schedule of works or the provisional statement to be modified contains no detail about what processes and procedures would apply. The Secretary of State would be free to impose any arrangement, by regulation, that she thought fit. I would not suggest that the industry drafted amendment No. 45. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire drafted and moved it, but he said quite clearly that he seeks to represent an industry that is worried about this part of the Bill. I cannot understand why an industry that purports to seek greater certainty wants to allow the Secretary of State carte blanche to include anything.
	It is abundantly clear that a modification of a provisional statement or schedule of works will go to the heart of procedures. It might, in effect, be a new application, and that could be an attempt to avoid representations that might come from local residents about such modifications. Whatever the intention behind the proposal, however, the truth is that it is far too open ended to include in the Bill, particularly at this late stage.
	Amendment No. 45 would also limit the validity of a provisional statement to three years. Once expired, a new provisional statement would be required, with the full procedures in play again every three years. That will bring the timing into line with proposals in respect of planning permission. The amendment, however, cannot be considered in isolation. The industry has offered this limitation as part of a package that includes limitations on representations that can be made by local residents or responsible authorities, including the police, at the end of the process, when a premises licence is being sought.
	We have no strong objection to the three-year limitation per se, although, in isolation, we cannot see the rationale behind seeking to time-limit its validity. We object, however, to the whole package that is being proposed. The Opposition seem to have what I consider to be a schizophrenic approach to a key issue such as cumulative effect. I have no doubt that in few moments we will hear the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) talk about cumulative effect.
	What would be the effect if, at the end of a long period during which a building has not been completed and has not become operational, serious changes had taken place in a vicinity? The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster gave some vivid examples that have stayed in my mind ever since: he pointed out that in a two or three-year period a street or an area of a city can change quickly and remarkably. For example, a large increase in vertical drinking establishments, as we came to call them in Committee, could take place. The responsible authorities, including the police or a department of the local authority, might say, Hang on, we want to talk about this. It might pose a serious problem to law and order in the area, or to other businesses that discover that their clientele do not want to come into a city centre. As happens in Manchester on a Friday or Saturday night, there may be 150,000 mainly young people having a good time but perhaps creating an atmosphere that some people find threatening. We heard in Committee that restaurateurs, for example, are very worried about those cumulative effects and are considering moving away from city centres. The Opposition cannot have it both ways: if they are to argue that case, they must also admit that things can and do change regularly.
	We want to give developers as much certainty as we can, but to understand the package we need to look at amendment No. 164, which was the last blast of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who, in effect, said, If you can't accept anything else, accept this. Well, I cannot accept amendment No. 164 either, and I shall explain why. It replaces a large part of clause 31, under which representations about applications for premises licences when a provisional statement has been issued are excluded if the application for the provisional statement and the work described in the schedule of works has been satisfactorily completed. For representations to be excluded, the relevant person must have been able to make the same or substantially the same representations when the provisional statement was applied for and must have failed to do so without reasonable excuse. There must also have been no material change in the circumstances relating to the premises or the vicinity of the premises since the statement was issued
	Amendment No. 164 would limit representations that can be made when a premises licence is sought in respect of premises for which a provisional statement has been made. It assumes that several other amendments in this group have been accepted.
	It would exclude representations other than those in respect of the premises supervisor if applications were made in similar or the same terms as the original application for the statement, if that statement was accompanied by an operating schedule and the work described in the schedule of works, or any modification of that schedule, had been or would be satisfactorily completed.
	Furthermore, if applications were made in similar or the same terms as the original application for the statement and that statement was not accompanied by an operating schedule but the work described in the schedule of works or any modification of that schedule had been or would be satisfactorily completed, all representations would be excluded if subsection (4) applied, meaning that the person would have failed to make representations without reasonable excuse and there would have been no material changes in circumstances relating to the premises or the vicinity of the premises.
	The amendments are built on the flawed assumption that a premises licence could not be obtained in advance of premises being constructed. The drafting of amendment No. 42 is technically flawed and the other amendments, which are the heart of the proposals, are built on that error. None of them can therefore be accepted.
	I understand fully why the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire tabled the amendments. I was as sorry as him that we did not have the opportunity to debate similar amendments in Committee. I remember going through amendments in Committee faster than I ever had before in an attempt to reach such amendments.
	I hope that my explanation demonstrates that even if the errors were corrected, the changes would not be necessary to give developers more confidence. They would upset the careful balance that the Bill will establish between the needs of developers and the rights of local residents, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
	We have spent a lot of time on these amendments, but I do not want to leave the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) without an answer. As he knows and as I tried to explain in Committee, we have been careful to ensure that local authorities will be as responsible as possible. The vast majority of local authorities will understand that the streamlined new procedure will allow them to cut many existing costs. We do not want to allow a rogue local authorityI am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman used that termto do such a thing as imposing prohibitive licensing fees that would stymie both development and live music and other forms of cultural expression in licensed premises. Fees will be set centrally for that reason and that reason alone, but we shall examine carefully such issues as turnover and geography to ensure that they are set fairly. We shall watch that situation carefully.

Valerie Davey: Can my hon. Friend tell me the extent of the range that the Government might have in mind? There is real worry that if we are not careful, extended-hours costspolicing and cleaningwill be borne by the taxpayer rather than those who use and benefit from the extended hours.

Kim Howells: I make it clear to my hon. Friend that none of those costs will form part of the fees that we will charge. People have the right to have a good time in pubs whether they drink at 2 am or 10 pm. One would think that the Bill had nothing to do with extending licensing hours and freeing up the way in which we enjoy ourselves and participate in licensable activities, because we have not got round to discussing that at all. The Bill is deregulatory and liberating. We shall have to address costs that might arise as part of a consideration of local government funding in general. I shall not lumber the licensed industry with those costs.

Mike Hancock: rose

Kim Howells: I love the way the Liberals always come up with something right at the end. I give way to the hon. Gentleman because he was here earlier.

Mike Hancock: I am somewhat confused about the line that the Minister is taking. It seems that it is okay for licensees to be exempt from meeting the costs, but that local authorities, which are already hard pressed for cash, will have to pick up those extra costs. That is the very point that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) made.

Kim Howells: Yes, and it is the very thing that we do not deal with in the Bill. I do not know how familiar the hon. Gentleman is with the legislation. He has had plenty of time to study it and to listen to and participate in the debates, although I am not aware that he has taken part up until now. We are dealing with licensable activities. We are not dealing with a more general issue of local government funding or the possible direct consequences for local government funding of activities that might occur away from licensed premises. I would be willing to have that debate another time. That is also my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey).
	We are dealing with something that is specific to an industry and it concerns licensable activities. There are many reasons for litter on the street and loutish behaviour. Some of them are to do with what goes on inside pubs, but many of them are not. The Bill tries to make a significant change by blowing away the clouds of criminality that have surrounded the issue of alcohol licensing in this country for far too long.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister made a reasonable fist of throwing out our amendments. I admit that there was a drafting error. However, we used legal counsel to table some of them, so we have not had incompetents assisting us.
	One concern remains in my mind: why are the Government changing the current rules and regulations relating to provisional licences? What has prompted them to go down that road? It is a change. The Minister says that it is not, but the Bill enables people with reasonable excuses to make late-stage objections. Has the Minister or his Department received a raft of objections as a result of the provisional licences? There is no evidence of that. Those in the industry think that the present system works extremely well and they see no reason to change it.
	The Minister went on at length about a degree of balance. We would support that, but how can there be a balance when individuals can jeopardise at a late stage millions of pounds of investment that has already been committed? He said that justices can examine cases afresh, but that can happen only when the conditions set down at the outset have not been fulfilled. That would provide real grounds on which to revisit licences, but there is no near certainty about any such matters. The Minister also talked about having another look at the fit-and-proper-person definition. That may be relevant when someone is nominated for a premises licence, but that can be altered and does not necessarily jeopardise the whole investment.
	We would be happy to give ground on some amendments, but we want to press amendment No. 38 to a Division. The industry believes that the current wording does not give it the assurance that it seeks on applications. The Minister has not convinced us on that.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 297.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 18
	  
	Determination Of Application For Premises Licence

Kim Howells: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 11, line 40, after '19' insert
	', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government amendments Nos. 67, 68, 71 to 75, 90, 100, 101, 103 and 104.
	Government new clause 2Mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films.
	Government new clause 3Mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films.

Kim Howells: The amendments introduce a mandatory condition to be included in all premises licences and club premises certificates authorising the exhibition of films, for the admission of children to the exhibition of any film to be restricted in accordance with the recommendations given to films either by the body designated under section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984the British Board of Film Classification is the only body that has been so designatedor by the licensing authority itself.
	Allowing the licensing authority to recommend restrictions on the admittance of children to film screenings would preserve the current, rarely exercised power of local authorities to classify films themselves, including on an individual film basis, which will allow ultimate discretion and ensure that the many excellent film festivals held in this country can continue without each film having to be classified by the film classification body.
	We tabled the amendments in response to discussions with the BBFC, which was concerned that the Bill, and in particular the licensing objective of
	the protection of children from harm,
	might not allow it to do all it wished in relation to the classification of films. I have been able to give it an assurance that we intend the objective to have the widest possible meaning and to cover moral, psychological and physical harm. However, in response to the board's wishes, I have agreed to reinforce with the amendments the provisions relating to the access of children to films.
	It is important to bear it in mind that the effect of the amendments is not to place the film classification body's recommendations on a statutory footing, but simply to recognise in the Bill the body's expertise, while making it clear that the licensing authorities will continue to be able to impose their own classifications. That preserves the effect of the current position under the Cinemas Act 1985. We will support the amendments with additional references in the statutory guidance to the body's activities.
	I am pleased to commend the amendments as a response to the BBFC's concerns and I hope that the House will support them.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendment made: No. 67, in page 12, line 6, after '19' insert
	', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 34
	  
	Determination Of Application Under Section 33

Amendment made: No. 68, in page 20, line 15, after '19' insert
	', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 36
	  
	Application To Vary Licence To Specify Individual As Premises Supervisor

Kim Howells: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 21, line 11, leave out from 'licence' to end and insert
	'may
	(a) if the licence authorises the supply of alcohol, or
	(b) if he has applied under section 33 to vary the licence so that it authorises such supplies,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 70, 88, 89, 120, 121, 98, 122 to 131, 99 and 102.

Kim Howells: This is a group of minor technical amendments. Government amendments Nos. 69 and 70 are minor amendments perfecting the drafting of the Bill in relation to applications to vary the individual specified in a premises licence as the designated premises supervisor. It is only for premises licences authorising the supply of alcohol that a designated premises supervisor is required, because of the particular issues that arise from the supply and consumption of alcohol and the responsibilities that go with that.
	The centrality to the system of the concept of the designated premises supervisor has been discussed at great length in Committee and in another place, together with a number of modifications that the Government have made to the Bill in response to various representations by the industry and by other bodies. Clause 36 provides that the holder of a premises licence may apply to vary the licence to specify a new premises supervisor.

Frank Field: On behalf of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and myselfwe are, respectively, chairmen of the Historic Chapels Trust and the Churches Conservation TrustI thank the Government for giving us the undertaking in correspondence that our organisations will be exempt, provided that we fulfil the religious qualification under the Bill. May I also use this opportunity to thank, through the Minister, his staff for the care that they have taken in negotiating those concessions?

Kim Howells: I take great pleasure in saying that I will convey my thanks to the staff, who worked very hard on that. My right hon. Friend has done the House a great service in persuading us that we should look again at the issue of historic churches. He will guarantee that many of them remain as great cultural and historical assets for this country.
	Government amendments Nos. 88 and 89 are technical amendments to improve the drafting of clauses 148 to 150 to achieve consistency with similar provisions in the Bill.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37
	  
	Circumstances In Which Section 36 Application Given Interim Effect

Amendment made: No. 70, in page 21, line 37, at end insert
	'in respect of a premises licence which authorises the supply of alcohol'.[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 51
	  
	Determination Of Application For Review

Amendment made: No. 71, in page 31, line 14, after '19' insert
	', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 71
	  
	Determination Of Application For Club Premises Certificate

Amendments made: No. 72, in page 41, line 44, leave out 'section 72(2) to (5)' and insert
	'any conditions which must under section 72(2) to (5) or [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films] be included in the certificate'.
	No. 73, in page 42, line 12, leave out 'section 72(2) to (5)' and insert
	'any conditions which must under section 72(2) to (5) or [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films] be included in the certificate'.[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 83
	  
	Determination Of Application Under Section 82

Amendment made: No. 74, in page 47, line 29, leave out from first 'to' to end of line 31 and insert
	'sections 72 and [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films] (mandatory conditions relating to supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises and to exhibitions of films)'.[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 86
	  
	Determination Of Application For Review

Amendment made: No. 75, in page 50, line 1, leave out from first 'to' to end of line 3 and insert
	'sections 72 and [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films] (mandatory conditions relating to supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises and to exhibitions of films)'.[Dr. Howells.]
	It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, mr deputy speaker, put the Questions necessary to dispose of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Clause 98
	  
	Temporary Event Notice

Amendments made: No. 76, in page 55, line 18, leave out '72' and insert '96'.
	No. 77, in page 55, line 32, leave out '72' and insert '96'.
	No. 78, in page 56, line 8, at end insert
	'(7A) The Secretary of State may, by order
	(a) amend subsections (1) and (5)(b) so as to substitute any period for the period for the time being specified there;
	(b) amend subsection (5)(d) so as to substitute any number for the number for the time being specified there.'.[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 105
	  
	Counter Notice Where Permitted Limits Exceeded

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 59, line 23, leave out 'or (4)' and insert ', (4) or (4A)'.
	No. 81, in page 59, line 35, leave out 'five' and insert '12'.
	No. 82, in page 59, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert
	'(a) are in respect of the same premises as notice A, and'.
	No. 83, in page 59, line 40, at end insert
	'(4A) This subsection applies if, in any year in which the event period specified in notice A (or any part of it) falls, more than 15 days are days on which one or more of the following fall
	(a) that event period or any part of it,
	(b) an event period specified in a temporary event notice already given in respect of the same premises as notice A or any part of such a period.'.
	No. 84, in page 60, line 3, leave out 'or (4)' and insert ', (4) or (4A)'.
	No. 85, in page 60, line 20, at end insert
	'(10A) The Secretary of State may, by order, amend subsection (2)(b), (3)(b), (4) or (4A) so as to substitute any number for the number for the time being specified there.'.
	No. 86, in page 60, line 21, at end insert
	'( ) a temporary event notice is in respect of the same premises as notice A if it is in respect of the whole or any part of the relevant premises or premises which include the whole or any part of those premises;'.
	No. 87, in page 60, line 22, after 'year;' insert
	'( ) day means a period of 24 hours beginning at midnight;'.[Dr. Howells.]

Schedule 4
	  
	Personal Licence: Relevant Offences

Amendments made: No. 94, in page 117, line 16, at end insert
	' An offence under section 1 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (c.29) (false trade description of goods) in circumstances where the goods in question are or include alcohol.'.
	No. 95, in page 118, line 21, at end insert
	'( ) section 107(3) (infringement of copyright by public performance of work etc.);'.
	No. 96, in page 118, line 33, at end insert
	' An offence under either of the following provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 (c.16) in circumstances where the food in question is or includes alcohol
	(a) section 14 (selling food or drink not of the nature, substance or quality demanded);
	(b) section 15 (falsely describing or presenting food or drink).'.
	No. 97, in page 118, line 33, at end insert
	' An offence under section 92(1) or (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (c.26) (unauthorised use of trade mark, etc.in relation to goods) in circumstances where the goods in question are or include alcohol.'.[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 148
	  
	Delivering Alcohol To Children

Amendment made: No. 88, in page 81, line 26, leave out 'sale' and insert 'supply'.[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 150
	  
	Prohibition Of Unsupervised Sales By Children

Amendment made: No. 89, in page 82, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert
	'(i) the holder of a premises licence in respect of the premises,
	(ii) the designated premises supervisor (if any) under such a licence, or
	(iii) any individual aged 18 or over who is authorised for the purposes of this section by such a holder or supervisor,'.[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 164
	  
	Review Of Premises Licence Following Closure Order

Amendment made: No. 90, in page 90, line 21, after '19' insert
	', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 170
	  
	Activities In Certain Locations Not Licensable

Amendment made: No. 91, in page 94, line 30, at end insert
	'( ) at premises which, at the time when the activity is carried on, are permanently or temporarily occupied for the purposes of the armed forces of the Crown,'.[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 192
	  
	Regulations And Orders

Amendments made: No. 92, in page 107, line 12, at end insert
	'(aa) an order under section 98(7A) (alteration of maximum temporary event period),
	(ab) an order under section 105(10A) (alteration of limit on number of temporary event notices),'.
	No. 93, in page 107, line 22, leave out '(3)(b)' and insert '(3)(aa), (ab), (b)'.[Dr. Howells.]

Schedule 6
	  
	Minor And Consequential Amendments

Amendments made: No. 120, in page 139, line 27, leave out 'to 133' and insert 'and 132'.
	No. 121, in page 139, line 27, at end insert
	' In section 133 (miscellaneous provision about new towns), in subsection (1), omit the following definitions
	(a) development corporation,
	(b) the 1964 Act.'.[Dr. Howells.]

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 146, line 8, at end insert
	'Data Protection Act, 1998 (c. 29)
	( ) In section 35 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc.),after subsection (1) insert
	(1A) Where the constitution, rules, standing orders, Memorandum, Articles of Association or other governing instrument of any club, society, company or other legal person (not being an individual) contains a provision (hereinafter called a rule provision) framed to comply with any enactment repealed by the Licensing Act 2003, the exemption afforded by subsection (1) shall continue to apply to that rule provision and anything done under it, notwithstanding the repeal of such enactments..'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 169, in page 156, line 35 [Schedule 8], at end insert
	'( ) if the premises currently operate subject to undertakings which have been given to the licensing justices, a copy of those undertakings,'.
	No. 4, in page 157, line 24 [Schedule 8], leave out from 'that' to 'converting' in line 25.
	No. 138, in page 158, line 8 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
	No. 179, in page 159, line 21 [Schedule 8], at end insert
	'( ) the purposes embodied in those undertakings of a permanent nature that relate to the licensing objectives which have been offered by the licensee and which attach to the relevant existing licence,'.
	No. 180, in page 159, line 24 [Schedule 8], after 'the', insert 'permanent undertakings and'.
	No. 170, in page 159, line 25 [Schedule 8], at end insert
	'or
	( ) those undertakings which have been given to the licensing justice in respect of the relevant existing licence, or licences, which the licensing authority decides are necessary to promote the licensing objectives.'.
	No. 139, in page 160, line 11 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
	No. 47, in page 162, line 13 [Schedule 8], leave out from 'must' to end of line 15 and insert
	'grant a premises licence and the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall have effect as if the application were for conversion of an existing justices' licence'.
	No. 140, in page 164, line 23 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
	No. 141, in page 165, line 33 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.

Malcolm Moss: The lead amendment, which is to schedule 6, relates to the Data Protection Act 1998. It is our understanding that the data protection commissioner required treasurers or secretaries of clubs, sporting or otherwise, to cease publication of the names and addresses of applicants for membership from computer details. However, we also understand that schedule 7(3) of the Licensing Act 1964 required publication and that section 35(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 therefore protects publication. It states:
	Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.
	When the 1964 Act is repealed, the requirement for which it provides will no longer apply. Doubtless that means that the protection in section 35 of the 1998 Act will no longer apply. Accordingly, any publication of the applicant's name and address from computer records to comply with a club's constitution will contravene the 1998 Act. What was once legally necessary could become illegal overnight. Club constitutions would have to be altered to take effect on the same day as the repeal. Sadly, most club secretaries will not be surfing the internet for appointed day orders.
	Clubs may decide to simplify their rules when the new law is introduced. If they did that, the exemption would no longer apply because the rule provision would no longer be in force. However, they should not be obliged to make such a change and the amendment would allow choice.

Frank Dobson: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 169 and 170, which are in my name and that of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), and are supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). Our constituencies, like many others, are severely affected, if not afflicted, by noise, loutish behaviour, vandalism and intimidation, often late at night as people enter or leave licensed premises. Although it is rather late for a sitting in the Commons nowadays, it may be an hour or two yet before our constituents have their sleep disturbed by the behaviour that I described.
	Both amendments refer to undertakings that were previously given to magistrates by licensees to obtain or continue an existing licence. Provided that the undertakings have been complied with, they have given the protection from nuisance that local residents currently enjoy. We believe that if such undertakings disappear, problems and a great deal of nuisance are likely to arise for residents who have grown accustomed to some sort of control over licensed premises.
	The amendments would continue the protection. I am told that some Government officials claim that that cannot be done by retaining conditions in the existing licences because, they assert, the undertakings do not have the force of law. However, I have done some checking and I have the Justices' Clerks Society Good Practice Guide 2002 Edition, which is the most recent edition. From that, it is as plain as a pikestaff that, under the current position, if licensees refuse to continue an undertaking, the magistrates can refuse to grant the licence. The only recourse for the disappointed licensee is to make a new application to the justices.
	That seems to me to be pretty close to having the force of law. Whether that is the case or not, my colleagues and I do not see why the existing undertakings cannot be included as a condition in new licences, and amendment No. 170 seeks to include in a new licence the existing provisions. That would not require the new licensing body to include them as a condition, but it would give it the right to consider the matter and to include them if it saw fit. I really cannot see what is wrong with that proposition.
	Amendment No. 169 can only be described as even more reasonable and unassertive than amendment No. 170, and it should cause the Governmentand the licensees, for that matterless of a problem. All that it would do would be to require that an application to renew an existing licence should specify on the face of the application the existing undertakings, so that the new licensing body could consider whether it wished to dispense with them, vary them or include them as a condition. That seems to us to be a very moderate request, but if it is not granted, or if the Government cannot find some other way of bringing about the possible continuation of some of the existing undertakings at the discretion of the new licensing body, hundreds of neighbourhoods and tens of thousands of people all over the country who enjoy some protection will see that protection withdrawn. I cannot believe that that is the Government's intention.

Nick Harvey: I endorse the points made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and support the amendments to which he spoke, as well as those that stand in my name. The undertakings that have been extracted from licensees by magistratesparticularly in London and other city areas, but in other parts of the country as wellare a vital part of licensing law as it stands. They represent the wisdom and expertise acquired by magistrates in carrying out these tasks over a period of years.
	I simply do not believe that those undertakings cannot be continued into the new regime in the manner described by the right hon. Gentleman. They should constitute part of the first application that the licensee makes under the new regime. I know from what Ministers have said previously that they are sympathetic to that objective, but they seem to have convinced themselves that, for some reason, it cannot be done in the simple form that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. It is vital that it should be done. If it is not, we shall be requiring the local authorities that are going to take over this role to reinvent the wheel. They will have to take a crash course, learning all the experiences of every set of premises that magistrates have gathered over a period of years and wisely written into the agreements that they have made with those premises. It will be difficult enough to handle the transition anyway. The local authorities will be taking on a huge task, cranking themselves up to carry out all these new functions. It would make that task very much easier, and afford far more protection for residents living near licensed premises, if the undertakings that had been built up over time were to transfer to the new regime along with the licence.
	I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has looked into the technical arguments and suggested to the House that he believes that the undertakings could and should be carried forward. He is absolutely right, and, as he says, if they are not, there are going to be disgruntled residents all over the place who will view the new legislation from the outset as being unable to provide them with the protection, peace of mind and peaceful enjoyment of their homes and properties that they have had in the past.
	That will leave an even bigger challenge for the local authorities that have to struggle to make sense of complicated new legislation. I appeal to Ministers, if on no other basis, to agree to carry those undertakings forward just to give their new legislation and regime as good a start as possible. Otherwise, they will be mired in localised battles and difficulties from the outset in a way that I am sure they do not want.

Mark Field: I wish to address the issue of undertakings, if I may, as well as the amendments on transitional arrangements that stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss).
	It might appear curious to many of those watching the debate in the Gallery or on the BBC's Parliament Channel that there is such cross-party agreement, but I have worked closely with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) as these issues have affected all of us in our part of central London. Indeed, it is fair to say that probably only the three of us know the boundaries of our constituencies. Many police and many constituents would not know when they had crossed from parts of Camden in Covent Garden to Westminster or that in crossing the Marylebone road they had gone from one side of Westminster to another.
	It is important to stress that the amendments on undertakings are not simply a matter of the effect on central London. I am acutely aware of that, although in Committee the Minister often teased me in his pleasant way about how I addressed many comments to the particular and unusual circumstances of the city of Westminster. It is a fact that many of the issues apply to coastal towns across the country. Dare I say it, as he is sitting directly to my right, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) will find that they apply to many licensed premises in his constituency? Seaside towns across the country will equally be affected if the undertakings regime is dismantled in the way that the Government envisage.
	There have been difficulties for many of us who served in Committee, particularly those such as me who are of a libertarian bent. I do not necessarily think that there should be strict rules applying to drinking at all hours. If only we lived in a society in which we could rely on individual responsibility, and if only people who are happy drinking at all hours in Soho, Covent Garden or any of our seaside towns on warm, summer days such as this could be trusted to behave in a civilised fashion, we would all like a liberalisation and deregulation of all licensing laws. However, we all know, sadly, that we do not live in such an ideal world and there is therefore a necessity to have some framework in place.
	I have had some fundamental disagreements, which I referred to on Second Reading. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may do so again on Third Reading. However, one can understand that there is a need for some regulatory framework. I probably speak for many Members who represent seats with large licensed alcohol and entertainment industries in saying that we have a schizophrenic approach to them in certain respects. We would like much deregulation in certain areasindeed, many of us spoke on those matters earlier on Reportwhile we want strict regulation in others.
	In respect of undertakings, I have been impressed by the work done by a number of residents associations in my constituency, in particular the Meard and Dean street residents association, which put forward a detailed paper that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras alluded to. It is clear that the local Metropolitan police view the undertakings as an important part of any licensing application made by prospective licensees. They are, for want of a better phrase, a gentlemen's agreementin these politically correct times, I should perhaps say that they are a ladies' and gentlemen's agreementbetween the applicant and the licensing justices. They show good will on behalf of the premises that they will be run correctly and responsibly managed.
	It is also said that, in the case of multiple operators, any revocation notices served will be effective. The Metropolitan police in the central London area have objected to new applications for transfer on the ground that the applications in themselves constituted a clear attempt to opt out of revocation proceedings. A revocation notice will be withdrawn only when it is shown that the operators have no further financial or business dealings with the new venture that is being applied for.
	I agree with the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) that we should be gravely concerned about the fact that if we eliminate the current undertakings regime, we shall lose generations of expertise that have helped to ensure a balance in particular vicinities. It would be sad to lose the long-standing wisdom of magistrates who know and love their areas.
	As I know from my constituency, it is feared in central London that if we start with a blank sheet of papera new conditions regimehaving got rid of all those undertakings, we shall see more than just a lowering of standards. Anyone out on the streets of Soho or Covent Garden at 3 or 4 am on a Saturday or Sunday morning will probably be horrified by the sheer mass of people there, and the antisocial behaviour that takes place. What some describe as late-night licensing is actually early-hours licensing. As I have said here a number of times, the great majority of people who live in Soho and Covent Garden live there not by choice, but because they are social tenants: 70 to 80 per cent. of housing in those areas is social housing. Such vulnerable people require a strict undertakings regime that reflects the history of their area.
	I hope that the Minister will think seriously about what I have said,. It is not just special pleading for a small part of central London; it applies to much of the country. I fear that our debate has not been as vociferous as it might have been partly because the real implications of what is being proposed have not become apparent to many Members who represent seaside towns. It is only during a handful of weekends at this time of the year that antisocial behaviour becomessadlythe norm, and for that reason a blind eye may have been turned to many provisions that undermine protection for the local population.
	The hon. Member for North Devon rightly focused on residents, but we should go a step further. What gives my part of the country its charmand I am sure that the same applies to all seaside townsis the existence of long-standing family businesses such as small wine bars, pubs and restaurants that may have been in the hands of families for several generations. In the event of the downward spiral into an entirely deregulated 24-hour cityfor want of a better phrasethere is a risk that only the very large operators will step in. At the time of the next economic upturn, selling out will be an extremely attractive proposition for many long-standing family operators, and only the lowest common denominator will be appealed to.
	We central London Members are not appealing to our residential population just on a nimby basis, although it must be said that, come election time, it is the residential rather than the business population that votes. We want businesses to thrive. We want smaller family businesses with a genuine stake in the community to survive.
	Let me say something about the transitional arrangements. I gave the Minister chapter and verse on the arrangements that applied in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where I was a councillor until 12 months ago.
	It was able to brief me. He will be gratified to learn that I have even more statistics to hand from the city of Westminster. They will similarly underline some of the challenges facing Westminster. It is for that relatively straightforward reason that my amendments Nos. 138 to 141 are designed to double the length of the initial transitional period from two to four months.
	It seems evident that government in the broader senseby which I mean local government as well as central Governmentand business need to consider how best to contribute to the costs of the community of late-night entertainment. The night-time economy already puts a major strain on central London's local infrastructure and public services. That is a recurring theme, and I am sure that all Members with constituencies in central London agree that we lack such an infrastructure in respect of a 24-hour public transport systemapart from buses, where great improvements have been made, but not enough to cater for the vast numbers congregating in central London, particularly at weekends.
	Similarly, the police infrastructure is inadequate. Statistics are often bandied around about the number of police available in the west end on an average evening, but it is clear that without enormous investment of resources in that sector we will not secure sufficient cover for the needs of the residential population and those who are out and about in central London during the night. I am not talking only about the alcohol-fuelled violence and loutish behaviour of a small minority, but about the crush caused by the sheer number of people around at that time of the night and early morning.
	In my viewand it conforms to the experience of people who have lived in places such as Soho for many decadeslate licensing means that transport, policing and street cleansing services need to be able to respond to the impact created by the thousands of people leaving late-licensed premises. To give some concrete examples from the city of Westminster, 10 new portable urinals have been installed in the west end on Friday and Saturday nights only. These are somewhat gruesome statistics, but during the past year, those urinals collected some 12,000 gallons of urine at a cost of 91,780 per year.
	Members who have spent any time in the west end for late-night entertainment, particularly during the summer, will know that we have a night refuse collection service, which collects an average of 110 tonnes of waste each night, seven nights a week. A regular and persistent cleansing, degreasing and flushing service deals with much of the pavement in Oxford street and surrounding areasit sounds like the Forth bridge. Indeed, in Westminster 4,500 km of streets have to be cleaned in that way. Likewise, evidence shows that the peak time for crime in a place such as Westminster is 3 am. An area of the west end covering only 4 per cent. of the city of Westminster generates some 40 per cent. of the crime.
	For that reason, above all, we believe that a transitional period of two months is far too short. It was suggested in Committee that we should extend that period to six or even 12 months. I hope that, in attempting to find a compromise for my amendments, my suggestion of four months represents a sensible way forward. I accept that my statistics apply specifically to Westminster.
	There is no doubt that late-night entertainment is firmly established in Westminster and throughout the other parts of the west end. Westminster has the UK's largest 24-hour economy and it should be stated once and for all that the city of Westminster is not opposed to late licences. People are proud of the diverse and vibrant night-time economy in the west end and beyond. However, if it is to continue, it needs to work well and be a well-managed mix of business and community interests.
	I have always felt that nothing could be worse for the medium and long-term future of many of these areas than becoming ever more denuded of a residential population. It is interesting to learn that the other part of my constituencythe City of Londonhas for the first time in 200 years, as demonstrated by the most recent census, had an increase in its population.
	Suddenly it has become more desirable to a residential population, and we need to maintain that vibrancy and fluidity by making the area a pleasant place for families to live. That is essential if cities are to become more liveable. It has been part of this Government's agenda, and I am sure that it will be part of a future Conservative Government's agenda, to ensure that our cities become much more habitable. We have seen great success stories in places such as Manchester and Liverpool, after decades of what appeared to be an intolerable and inexorable decline. A sensible and balanced licensing policy can play an important part in such regeneration.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the policies of restricting out-of-town development and the insistence on building mixed economies in the centre of our cities, which were started under the previous Government and continued by this Government, are important to his point? People who live in the centre of cities must be considered alongside the 24-hour people who travel in and out of the centre. That point is even more urgent than it was 20 years ago, when there was a division between the commercial and the residential.

Mark Field: I could not agree more, and it may have been unfair of me to fail to point out the successes of the previous Conservative Administration in which, of course, my right hon. Friend played a leading role. He hit the nail on the head.
	The number of licensed premises in the City of Westminster as a whole has grown to more than 3,000, two thirds of which are located in the small stress area commonly known as the west end. For the last full calendar year, Westminster received some 1,024 applications relating to entertainment licences and night caf licences, only 14 of which were refused. That is an enormous burden, and moving from the transitional arrangements to an entirely new regime in such a short time will lead to an administrative logjam in Westminster. It will be very difficult to make a smooth transition.
	In the past year, 812 applications were made for public entertainment licences and night caf licences and only a small number were refused. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to how a transitional regime that gives only eight or nine weeks notice can possibly work in the larger London boroughs.
	Discussion has taken place at various stages about fees, and I do not wish to reiterate the arguments. However, an extended night-time economy means that local authorities face numerous significant costs and burdens. It is vital that they have the ability to manage their town centres using locally determined strategies in partnership with all stakeholders. Under the Bill, authorities will also have substantial extra administrative costs, to which we have referred. The local authorities believe that any licensing regime must allow councils to recoup the cost of delivering the scheme. It is not seen, and should not be seen, as a money-spinner to allow local councils to make significant sums of money. We went into considerable detail in Committee to explain that no one considers it to be a money-spinner. Indeed, the large costs incurred for some of the highlighted premisesfor example, the Royal Albert hall, which pays some 12,000 to 15,000 a yearwere something of a loss leader for Westminster city council.
	As well as a smooth transition, local authorities wish to ensure that they have the ability to set locally determined fees that reflect local circumstances, but based on Government guidelines indicating applicable costs, instead of relying on centrally prescribed fixed amounts, as currently proposed. The initial start-up costs for the City of Westminster, before it received any applications, would be about 100,000 and the projected fee incomebased on an average of 300 in the transition yearwould be just under 972,000, or just under 1 million.
	That would lead, on the council's calculation, to a shortfall of 200,000 in administrative costs.
	I hope that the Minister can give some guidance on fees. I accept that I have gone slightly beyond the amendments, but the point is a relevant one. I also seek some guidance on the transitional arrangements.

John Redwood: I should normally favour deregulation and greater freedom and choice, but I have been swayed by the arguments this evening and by my reading elsewhere. There is a real problem, and I hope that the Minister listens attentively and sensitively.
	The nub of the Bill is summed up in the dilemma posed by the amendments. On the one hand, many of us would like businesses to have greater freedom to provide a wider range of service and choice to their customers. On the other hand, we all represent people who live close to licensed premises, and they have rights as well. They have bought their properties on the basis of a certain licensing regime and a certain pattern of conduct. They will naturally be very upset if that pattern of conduct is changed rapidly and in a direction that is adverse to their interests. I hope that the Minister understands that this is a real issue and that the amendments modestly try to make small improvements for those who live near licensed premises.
	I assure the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) is right to say that the provisions apply not only to his own part of London. They could apply to any major urban or metropolitan area, in towns and elsewhere. Conflicts can arise between businesses and licence users and residents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) rightly reminded us that getting more life into our inner cities has been a bipartisan policy. We all welcome it, but there must be some restriction of antisocial conduct and prevention of antisocial hours from getting out of control or being permitted or encouraged so that the amenity of a city is wrecked for those who live or work in it.
	I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the modest suggestion of a longer transition period, albeit still a short one given the complexities in many areas of licensing. A great deal of work remains to be done. I hope that he will also respond sympathetically to the idea of undertakings so that people can be reassured that there will not be sudden lurches in the regime.

Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) spoke with great knowledge, having participated considerably in the Standing Committee on the Bill. He expressed intimate knowledge of his constituency here in the centre of London.
	I rise primarily to support the brief but accurately expressed case of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). As several speakers have said, this issue is not just for the large cities. It relates to many towns and large villages up and down the country. In my own constituency, there are severe problems with antisocial behaviour resulting from alcohol abuse, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights in the centre of Macclesfield. That makes it extremely unpleasant for those who go there to dine out or to drink modestly and to behave and enjoy themselves. It creates tremendous problems for those who live in the town centre.
	Antisocial behaviour is a problem, and the police find it extremely difficult to do anything about it. I hope that the Minister will give rational responses to the many points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, but I support the case put by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras for ensuring that the undertakings and conditions applying to existing licences can be carried forward to the new regime.
	The Report stage of a Bill offers Back Benchers who were unable to speak on Second Reading or were not members of the Standing Committee their only opportunity to advance the interests of their constituents and constituencies. The Minister has a reputation for sensitivity and for being rational and helpful to Members of Parliament who have experience of the matters that we are discussing, so will he respond positively to the amendments?
	Why is it not possible to carry existing undertakings forward into the new regime? That could be simply done. The Government could help the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to deal with any modest drafting deficiencies in the provisions, or could themselves put them right in due course, if they are unable to do so at present. The amendment is reasonable and it has cross-party support. The House is trying to come to the right decision and I strongly support the amendment for which the right hon. Gentleman so ably argued.

Kim Howells: It is extremely refreshing to hear the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and his right hon. and hon. Friends argue the case for residents. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber earlier this evening, he would have heard me berated from both sides of the House for wanting to retain a bit of regulation covering loud rock bands playing in pubs, and for not giving developers a cast-iron right, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) wanted, to open up huge pubs, no matter what might happen to the community. It was wonderful to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Macclesfield, and I am glad that he made it.
	It was interesting to hear the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) say that we need to get people back into our city centres. The right hon. Gentleman is a cultured man, so he will have seen Hogarth's Gin Lane paintings. The problems are not new; they have always been with us. The scale, however, is phenomenal.
	In Committee, we talked a great deal about the huge number of people who migrate to our cities on Friday and Saturday nights. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) reminded us, nowhere attracts people like the west end of London; it always has, and I hope that it always will. The hon. Gentleman might also have mentioned Manchester, where the police tell me that 150,000 people go in to the centre, many, but not all of them, to drink.
	The hon. Member for Macclesfield made an important point about businesses such as high-quality restaurants. When I was in Manchester, I was told that the clientele of such restaurants found the atmosphere on the street rather intimidating. It is not that people set out to be intimidating, but that where there are 150,000 young men and women who might have drunk a bit too much, a person could feel a little insecure late on a Saturday night when they were out with their family enjoying a good meal in a good restaurant. We need to take that into account.
	The group of amendments broadly covers some of the issues that will emerge during transition from the old licensing regime to the regime established by the Bill. I am not sure that amendment No. 61, which was moved by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, would achieve the effect that he intended. It would certainly amend the Data Protection Act 1998 so as to maintain the ability to disclose information under section 35(1), which is otherwise subject to non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings in respect of certain information pertaining to clubs, companies or other legal persons notwithstanding the repeal of certain provisions in the Licensing Act 1964.
	In our view, amendment No. 61 is wholly unnecessary. Section 35(1) of the 1998 Act will continue to apply, and appropriate protections of personal data in the 1998 Act will continue to apply to information and data held by licensing authorities for the purposes of their licensing functions. Maintaining the ability to disclose information as required by law and in the context of legal proceedings is right, in the Government's view.
	Clause 180, which will permit the provision of information to other licensing authorities and responsible authorities, is restricted to the purpose of facilitating the exercise of the authority's functions under the Bill. That is as it should be. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire shakes his head, but I had hoped that that would give him some comfort.
	It may be sensible for me to deal with amendments Nos. 169, 170, 179 and 180 next, because they also address converted licences and undertakings. Although adopting slightly different approaches, those amendments would require a premises licence to be granted under the conversion provisions in schedule 8, subject to such conditions as reproduced the effect of the undertakings subject to which the existing licence or licencesfor example, a justices' licencehad been granted or renewed.
	The Bill will provide comprehensively that conditions attached to the existing licences will be reproduced in the new premises licence. In other words, everything that the licensing justices, for example, thought should be legally enforceable and which was within their discretion to impose would be attached as conditions to those existing licences. However, that is slightly different from what was proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, as he has explained.
	Undertakings are very different from what I have just described, and it is important to understand what they are. I chose the example of a justices' licence because that is the area of current licensing where undertakings are often mentioned. Indeed, such undertakings most commonly arise in the context of justices' off-licences, such as those held by supermarkets.
	Undertakings, which are sometimes sought by licensing justices, have no legal force. For the content of undertakings to have legal force, they must form conditions in existing licences. Undertakings may be considered by the justices when licences are being renewed, and if the undertakings have been broken, it could lead to the renewal of licences being refused. That is a very useful tool, but it is a discretionary practice, and we have discovered that it is carried on only by certain justices. However, any breach of an undertaking cannot of itself lead to a criminal prosecution, as would be the case with licence conditions, and undertakings cannot be enforced.
	In essence, such undertakings are entirely voluntary, and as such they do not attach to a licence. Under current legislation, they amount to no more than a personal promise by the applicant for a licence or a renewal. The question therefore is whether such promises should be made mandatory for licence conversion applicants under paragraph 2 of schedule 8, to provide information on such non-legal, personal matters, giving those undertakings new legal status and force, but it should be remembered that they may have existed without legal status or force for a number of years. That presents a difficulty.

Nick Harvey: The Minister says that the undertakings could not be used in prosecuting a licensee, but where such undertakings have been extracted and given, could not the magistrates nevertheless revoke the licence if the undertakings were not adhered to? Although the undertakings cannot be used in criminal prosecutions, they have some bite, as they can be used to take away the licence.

Kim Howells: As I explained, undertakings are a very useful tool, as things standbut I shall say why the regime that we propose will be much more useful. However, I take the point of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
	I have one key reason, however, for believing that the House should not agree to the proposal. Under the Bill, interested parties in responsible authorities can request the review of any premises licence on a ground relating to the licensing objectives. That provides ample opportunity for residents and others to seek a remedy if a licensee does something, or fails to do something, that was previously the subject of an undertaking that they consider should or should not be happeningprovided, of course, that the act or omission is relevant to the licensing objectives. I remind the House that those include the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. I therefore assure the House that the Bill provides ample protections.
	The Bill also provides more opportunities than there are at present for residents and others to seek a remedy if premises cause a particular problem. There is nothing to be gained in transferring undertakings to premises licences.

John Gummer: Surely the point made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was correct: if the condition that has been there is passed on, all the wisdom that led to that condition can be passed on automatically. There seems no reason why that should not be the case. The difficulty for the House in following the Minister is that we can see that to have both provisions would be sensible, but to leave one out would seem to lose a deal of experience.

Kim Howells: I am concerned about losing that experience, which we debated a great deal in Committee. I shall try to explain why safeguards exist to ensure that that experience is not lost, and why undertakingswhich reflect some of the worries given as illustrations by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminsterwere agreed, as they cannot be imposed, in the first place.
	I missed out a question asked by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). A licence cannot be revoked for a breach of undertakings, which exist as agreements. There may be other reasons why a licensee's behaviour, under the present regime, should mean that he loses his licence, but an undertaking cannot be used as a legal means of revoking a licence.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that hundreds of neighbourhoods would be affected. He implied that undertakings in respect of pubs, nightclubs and so on are common, but they are not. They are more common in London. He should note that in the good practice guide from which he quotedto which I shall refer in more detail in a momentthey are associated mostly not with pubs or nightclubs but with supermarkets and off-licences. They are used much more rarely in connection with pubs, and some misinformation may have been disseminated about how widespread the practice is. We do not think that it is that widespread.

Frank Dobson: The only thing that I know that casts doubt on what I am sure that my hon. Friend says in good faith is that not only does our proposal have the full support of the Metropolitan police but of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which represents police forces in neighbourhoods all over the country. If the practice is not widespread, I cannot see why they supplied the wording, which was duly turned by the Clerks into something more orderly and tabled as the amendment.

Kim Howells: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend was told that by the police. We had many discussions about the selective lobbying that we received on the Bill and we frequently found in Committee that lobbying groups had told the Opposition one thing and told us another. I have no doubt that the police and ACPO are getting their retaliation in first. They will press for the hardest possible measures to make their jobs easier.

Mark Field: It is curious that the Minister draws a distinction between London and other places. Surely the issue is whether undertakings will be relevant, not whether the issue relates to the capital city or throughout the country. The concern is about undertakings, not regionalisation.

Kim Howells: I made it clear that I was referring specifically to the claim made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that hundreds and thousands of communities would suffer if undertakings were not incorporated in the Bill in the manner proposed by amendment No. 170.
	As the guide published by the Justices' Clerks Society states, undertakings are based on custom and not in any way on the written law, which we are debating today. They are not enforceable in law and rely entirely on the co-operation of the licence holder. That is interesting because if an undertaking is broken under the existing regimethe wonderful system of undertakingsa person might have to wait three years before anything could be done about it. We have addressed that major weakness in the Bill. Under the existing system, action could occur only when renewal proceedings took place. In the meantime, the undertaking would be simply a promise that had been broken. That is why the review arrangements in the Bill are infinitely better and more dependable than the existing system. If a licence holder caused a nuisance or problems of disorder, the matter could be considered at the review of the licence, irrespective of whether it was the subject of an earlier undertaking.

Frank Dobson: If the advice that my hon. Friend has received is correct, why does the licensing justices' manual say that if a licensee has obtained a licence subject to an undertaking, the licensee may make application at any sessions to be released from the undertaking? If an undertaking has no force, there is no need for a licensee to bother to apply to be relieved of it. The manual also says that if a request is refused, the applicant's only remedy is to make application for a new justices' licence. Clearly those responsible for advising magistrates throughout the country believe that an undertaking does have force.

Kim Howells: An undertaking clearly does not have legal force. My right hon. Friend asked why anyone would bother to apply to be relieved of an undertaking but I can think of many reasons why a licensed premises or a licence holder might apply for an undertaking to be revoked or modified. For example, a different business might open next door or there might be a proliferation of vertical drinking establishments, which could alter the need for an undertaking. However, an undertaking does not have the force of law.

Frank Dobson: I understand my hon. Friend's point that circumstances might change to lead the licensee to want to unload an undertaking, but why would anyone bother if an undertaking cannot be enforced? Why would a person go to the bother of returning to a magistrate and risk being turned down?

Kim Howells: I would like to hear of a case of a licensee going voluntarily to a magistrate and risking being turned down and losing their licence. I bet that such a person is a pretty rare creature. However, I can imagine many situations in which licensees would want to keep sweet with licensing justices and be prepared to play footsie with them if they thought that it would help their next licence application. However, there will not be licensing justices.
	There will be a licensing authority instead. For the first time, those hard-pressed residents whom my right hon. Friend mentioned will have the opportunity to ask for a licence to be reviewed. They cannot do that now. The ability to do that is infinitely preferable to some kind of old boys' agreement between a licensee and licensing justices that might sometimes benefit local residents, but is designed for completely different purposes.

Kevan Jones: There is not only the review but the additional powers in clause 158 that allow senior police officers to close down premises for up to 24 hours on the grounds of public nuisance owing to noise emanating from premises or actual or likely disorder from a licensed premise. The police do not have those powers now and they will help residents.

Kim Howells: Yes, and if right hon. and hon. Members read the Bill they will see that it greatly strengthens the hand of the police, responsible authorities and local residents when they encounter difficulties not just in London, but all over the country. That is infinitely preferable to the existing situation.

Frank Dobson: My hon. Friend knows full well that I welcome the bulk of the Bill and the strengthening of the feeble arrangements for protecting the interests of residents and neighbouring businesses. However, I cannot understand the Government's rooted objection to our requirementthe very least that we proposethat when people apply to the new licensing body, they should include in their application a list of the undertakings that apply. I cannot understand why that is unacceptable.

Kim Howells: I understand my right hon. Friend's argument and know that he supports the Bill. It may well be the case that the conditions imposed on the licence will include many of the features of the undertakings, but I have obviously failed to communicate to him that those undertakings do not have statutory force. The Bill deals precisely with how we might maintain the order in communities such as the one that he represents. We have proposed a much simpler way of doing that. Undertakings are not statutory creatures and cannot be incorporated into the Bill as it stands. I do not accept the amendment to that effect because the regulations that we propose are much stronger, much simpler to understand and give local residents a much better opportunity to object.

Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister saying that the undertakings to which the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred could be translated into conditions that could be part of the new regime? If that is the case, he is going a long way towards reassuring us.

Kim Howells: I want to be careful in the answer that I give. My impulse is to say, yes, it could happen. It would certainly be up to the licensing authority to insist on conditions in any licence to which it agrees. If it considers that those undertakingsthey would have to be defined as something elseare necessary conditions for allowing a licence to be granted then so be it, but that flexibility must be given to the licensing authority because there may be many other considerations and variables that it might want to include in the agreement.
	I turn now to amendments Nos. 138 to 141, in the name of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). Among other things, schedule 8 provides that when an application is made for conversion of existing licences to a premises licence, or for conversion of registration certificates in the case of clubs, and no decision has been taken by the licensing authority after two months, the application will be deemed granted. Similarly, where an application is made to vary such a converted licence or club premises certificate, and no decision has been taken by the licensing authority, it is to be deemed refused two months after it was received.
	Essentially, the conversion of existing licences, as a grandfather right, is an entirely administrative process, in which there can be no real excuse for delay. There has to be statutory pressure to resolve those cases, and that pressure is established by the time limit of two months, after which the application must be granted. We cannot allow licensing authorities to spin out transition for ever, and converted licences would only permit that which earlier licensing authorities or licensing justices had permitted in the past. Variations would be automatically deemed refused because no previous licensing authority would have sanctioned that variation in the past, and it is important that it is considered fully and that interested parties and responsible authorities have an opportunity to make representations. Deemed refusal would provoke an appeal and provide for finality.
	The amendments would change from two months to four months the period following the lodging of applications for converted premises licences or club premises certificates and variations of those licences and certificates after which the application would be deemed granted or refused if no decision had been taken. Although I completely understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to ease the pressure and burden on licensing authorities, I am concerned that some, although by no means all, would be inclined to delay and inefficiency. We have to make a judgment. I acknowledge the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but there is a terrible rule that says that if the limit is four months, the job will be done in four months, but if the limit is two months, it is a statement of faith from me saying that the job will be done in two months. I shall stick at that shorter period.
	I recognise that some larger authorities will have many applications to deal with, but they will of course have a much larger income to deploy in performing that task. The Government have made a promise to the people of this country that we will deliver the reform of licensing law, and we fully intend to do that and to ensure that the transition is completed quickly. None of the new licences will come into force until the transitional period ends, so the benefits of reform will not be seen on our high streets until then. I do not want to encourage delay. Despite the force of the hon. Gentleman's arguments and the examples that he has given us, I hope that, with that explanation, he will not press the amendments.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful for the Minister's response, particularly on amendment No. 61 in my name. I accept his argument that it is probably unnecessary, and I shall seek to withdraw it after I have commented on amendments Nos. 138 to 141, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). The first two deal with the determination of applications and variations in respect of premises licences, and the others deal similar matters relating to clubs.
	We have received strong representation from the Local Government Association and certain councils who fear that the two-month transition period allotted in the Bill for determination places too great a burden on them. Obviously we are talking about councils that will have to deal with a large number of licences.
	They feel that people who do not get the determination right will go to appeal, as the Minister said, so magistrates courts could quickly become clogged up if things go pear-shaped.
	The Minister talked about statutory pressure. We concede that if there is not some pressure in the legislation, everyone will go to the wire. We are not asking, in the Minister's words, for forever. We are asking for an extension of the two-month limit, which we think is reasonable and sensible, given all the work that needs to be done in the transition period to bring about a fundamental shift from licensing justices to the licensing authorities or local authorities. We therefore want to press amendment No. 138 to a vote, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment. No. 61.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 7
	  
	Repeals

Amendments made: No. 98, in page 149, line 25, at end insert
	'Common Informers Act 1951 (c. 39) In the Schedulethe entry relating to section 11 of the Universities (Wine Licences) Act 1743, and the entry relating to the Sunday Observance Act 1780.'.
	No. 122, in page 149, line 41, leave out line 41 and insert
	'in subsection (1), the words ; and accordingly as from that date and paragraphs (c) and (e), and'.
	No. 123, in page 150, line 45, at end insert
	'Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 (c. 66)In Schedule 7, paragraphs 9(a), (b), (d) and (f), 10, 11 and 12.'.
	No. 124, in page 151, line 28, leave out 'to 133' and insert 'and 132'.
	No. 125, in page 151, line 28, at end insert
	'In section 133(1), the definitions of development corporation and the 1964 Act.'.
	No. 126, in page 151, line 37, leave out '29' and insert '29(a)(i)'.
	No. 127, in page 152, line 9, at beginning of second column, insert
	'Section 3(1A).'.
	No. 128, in page 152, line 9, at end insert
	'Sections 17 and 18.'.
	No. 129, in page 152, line 12, leave out 'paragraph 15' and insert
	'paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 16(a) and the word and immediately following it.'.
	No. 130, in page 152, line 15, leave out
	', paragraphs 1(1) and 2 to 5'
	and insert
	'paragraph 1(1),in paragraph 1(3), the words following paragraph (c), and paragraphs 2 to 5'.
	No. 131, in page 154, leave out line 6.[Dr. Howells.]

Schedule 8
	  
	Transitional Provision Etc.

Amendment made: No. 99, in page 157, line 6, leave out from 'copy' to 'unless' in line 7.[Dr. Howells.]
	Amendment proposed: No. 138, in page 158, line 8, leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.[Mr. Mark Field.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 249.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 8
	  
	Transitional Provision Etc.

Amendments made: No. 100, in page 159, line 13, after '19' insert
	', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.
	No. 101, in page 159, line 19, after '19' insert
	', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.
	No. 102, in page 163, line 25, leave out from 'copy' to 'unless' in line 26.
	No. 103, in page 165, line 9, after '72' insert
	', [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films]'.
	No. 104, in page 165, line 13, after '72' insert
	', [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films]'.[Dr. Howells.]

New Clause 2
	  
	Mandatory Condition In Licences: Exhibition Of Films

'(1) Where a premises licence authorises the exhibition of films, the licence must include a condition requiring the admission of children to the exhibition of any film to be restricted in accordance with this section.
	(2) Where the film classification body is specified in the licence, unless subsection (3)(b) applies, admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that body.
	(3) Where
	(a) the film classification body is not specified in the licence, or
	(b) the relevant licensing authority has notified the holder of the licence that this subsection applies to the film in question,
	admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that licensing authority.
	(4) In this section
	children means persons aged under 18; and
	film classification body means the person or persons designated as the authority under section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (c.39) (authority to determine suitability of video works for classification).'.[Dr. Howells.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3
	  
	Mandatory Condition In Certificates: Exhibition Of Films

'(1) Where a club premises certificate authorises the exhibition of films, the certificate must include a condition requiring the admission of children to the exhibition of any film to be restricted in accordance with this section.
	(2) Where the film classification body is specified in the certificate, unless subsection (3)(b) applies, admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that body.
	(3) Where
	(a) the film classification body is not specified in the certificate, or
	(b) the relevant licensing authority has notified the club which holds the certificate that this subsection applies to the film in question,
	admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that licensing authority.
	(4) In this section
	children means persons aged under 18; and
	film classification body means the person or persons designated as the authority under section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (c.39) (authority to determine suitability of video works for classification).'.[Dr. Howells.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7
	  
	Allowing Children Into Licensed Premises

'(1) In pursuit of the licensing objective in section 4(2)(d) children under the age of 18 are only permitted to enter licensed premises when accompanied by an adult over the age of 18.
	(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) these licensed premises are
	(a) public houses, and
	(b) any similar establishments whose primary purpose is the consumption of alcohol.
	(3) Subsection (1) does not apply where the premises license operating schedule sets out clear, unambiguous steps to promote the licensing objective in section 4(2)(d) and which are agreed and accepted by the relevant licensing authority'.[Mr. Moss.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The new clause would replace a clause that was voted through in the other place, but taken out by the Government in Committee in this place. It concerns allowing children into licensed premises. As the Bill stands, clauses 143 to 150 deal with children and alcohol, but nowhere in any of those clauses do the Government see fit to restrict access by children of any age. In fact, the presumption is that children will be allowed on to licensed premises unless the licensee sets out in his operating schedule reasons why he cannot accommodate that and makes the position clear to the licensing authority.
	New clause 7 reverses the presumption. We tabled it after some discussion with the policethe same chief constable and members of the Association of Chief Police Officers to whom the Minister referred earlier. They want a presumption that no child under 18 will be allowed into licensed premises unless accompanied by an adult over 18. However, subsection (1) of the new clause would not apply
	where the premises licence operating schedule sets out clear, unambiguous steps to promote the licensing objective in section 4(2)(d)
	to protect children from harm
	and which are agreed and accepted by the relevant licensing authority.
	The presumption is that children should not be allowed into licensed premises unless accompanied, except when the licensee sets out specific steps on how he or she will deal with young children on the premises.
	The Government's approach conveys conflicting signals. On the one hand, they perceive a problem with alcohol and young people and they want to reduce consumption. On the other, the Bill provides that children of all ages can attain access to licensed premises. That sends the wrong signal. For example, the Bill provides that it is illegal to sell alcohol to children and for a level 5 fine, which is 20,000. It also provides that someone who is under 18 and consumes alcohol on relevant premises could be fined at level 3again, a significant sum. The Government appear to encourage children to enter licensed premises, but seek to criminalise them for succumbing to the temptation of consuming alcohol there.
	New clause 7 would replace a similar provision, which their Lordships strongly supported, but which was removed in Committee. When the Bill reverts to another place on Thursday, I am sure that the matter will be considered again.

Ross Cranston: Productive meetings have taken place with children's charities and organisations such as Alcohol Concern. They have been reassured by discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister.
	Although protection for children does not appear on the face of the Bill, it will be included in guidance. I am sure that hon. Members would be reassured if my hon. Friend could comment on the guidance.

Kim Howells: I may have misheard my hon. and learned Friend, but I emphasise that protecting children is one of the Bill's four licensing objectives.
	It being five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 258.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Order for Third Reading read.[Queen's and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am sure that Members on both sides of the House recognise the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) to our proceedings. His elevation to the post of Minister of State, Department of Transport in the recent reshuffle means that this was his last appearance as Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting. That gives rise to an important question: does a swan song constitute a licensable activity?

Kim Howells: Very good!

Tessa Jowell: I am glad my hon. Friend liked it.
	As is widely recognised in the House, the licensing reforms are overdue. It was the legislators of the Great War who formulated our permitted hours to ensure that people turned up at the munitions factories sober. The Licensing Act 1964 did no more than consolidate existing legislation, and the last significant changes were made in 1961, when new arrangements were introduced for registered members' clubs.The current system of licensing is out of date, complicated and costly. It is unresponsive to local concerns. Even more important is the fact that in some ways it actually contributes to the crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour that can blight our town and city centres. Not surprisingly, people expect better.
	This is a far-reaching Bill that will have a material impact on the central issue of quality of life, and how we as a nation use our leisure time. It will sweep away swathes of red tape and bureaucracy, delivering to the industry savings of nearly 2 billion over 10 years. Throughout the drafting and the debate, we have sought to maintain the critical balance between regulation and protection of the public, particularly children and vulnerable people.
	Where the Bill is deregulatory, it is also responsible. There is no denying that alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder, nuisance and antisocial behaviour are a real problem. No doubt Members on both sides of the House have experienced that problem in their constituencies. The Bill therefore contains a range of measures to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder and antisocial behaviour. Specifically, it provides statutory rights for local residents to make representations on applications for new licences, and to call for the review of existing licences. It provides for the establishment of clear priorities for licensing regulation in relation to crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. It will allow the police to close any licensed premises on the spot. There will be scope for licensing authorities, when necessary, to address cumulative effect, density and saturation. There will be a flexible range of remedies to replace the single all-or-nothing loss of licence that currently applies: remedies such as the restriction of opening hours or removal of a licensable activity from a licence and, when necessary, the suspension or full revocation of the licence. There is a wide range of measures to allow licensing authorities and the police to manage the night-time economy.
	I am grateful for the House's valuable work in building on the improvements made to the Bill in another place.
	I would like to take this opportunity to thank all Members, including Conservative Members, for their constructive approach, by and large, in Committee. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Howells) would like to echo that sentiment. The Bill has been strengthened in several important respects since it was introduced last year.
	We have already debated the issue of children's access to licensed premises. There is a clear need for reform of the current legislation on children's access to such premises. The current provisions are little understood. For example, it is not fully understood that under current law any child older than 14 may enter any part of licensed premises without adult supervision. In law, a child as young as five can go into a pub or club unsupervised as long as they stay away from the bar area. Furthermore, it is perfectly legal under the present system for a seven-year-old to go unsupervised into a night club at 2 in the morning. We do not see unaccompanied children in clubs and pubs because they can enter only at the licence holder's discretion. Under the Bill, landlords and licensees will retain such discretion; furthermore, one of the Bill's chief aims is the protection of children from harm. Applicants for licences will have to set out clearly the steps by which they intend to secure that objective. It would be open to all the statutory consultees, as well as local residentsincluding parents and teachersto make representations on any application, or to call for a review of a licence.
	Following concerns expressed in the House and in the other place, we have built on the protections in the Bill to make them even stronger. I have held discussions with a range of the principal children's charities, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the police, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Children's Society and others. As a result of those discussions, it was strongly agreed that clear statements should be made in statutory guidance, setting out the levels of protection that should apply in different sorts of licensed premises, ranging from cinemas, restaurants and supermarkets to pubs and bars. We have also added the local area child protection committee to the list of responsible authorities that are notified of every licensing application. They can make representations and call for reviews, giving further voice at every stage of the licensing process to child protection issues. But we remain alive to concerns in that critical area of the Bill and will fully consider all further representations made during the final stages of its passage.
	As to music, many concerns have been expressed, but they do not have a basis in fact in respect either of the Bill's intention or of how its provisions will be applied. We have heard that new expensive conditions will be attached to licences and that performers will be burdened by the requirement to get a licence. We believe that quite the reverse is the case. Far from threatening traditional music, the Bill will enhance the opportunities for traditional folk music to thrive.
	In various ways we have gone a considerable way to address the concerns.

Andrew Bennett: The Minister talks about traditional folk music, but what about traditional folk performance?

Tessa Jowell: Precisely the same objective applies. Just as opportunities for folk music will be enlarged, so too will opportunities for the performance of folk music.
	We have accepted the spirit of an amendment made in the other place that will exempt incidental live music. We have also made it clear that entertainers who simply perform at unlicensed venues, and do no more in respect of entertainment, will not be committing an offence. We have exempted places of public religious worship and we have made it clear that church halls, village halls and other community buildings will be exempt from fees for regulated entertainment. Similarly, we have exempted schools and sixth form colleges when they use their premises for such purposes.
	We will also use the accompanying guidance to emphasise the requirements of the Bill that only necessary and proportionate conditions be attached to the licences. That point particularly will reassure those who fear the unreasonable and disproportionate requirements of local authorities. In addition, we have looked again at limits on temporary event notices and have increased the length and number of events permissible in any year. We have done that in response to concerns raised by a wide range of organisations and groups, while at the same time balancing that liberalisation by ensuring adequate protection for the rights of local residents.

Malcolm Moss: The Secretary of State mentioned groups who have approached her Department about the temporary event notices. Many of those groups, especially Action with Communities in Rural EnglandACREare still unhappy about the Government's amendment of the figure to 12. They want 18 to 24, so they are still very dissatisfied. Does the Secretary of State agree with that?

Tessa Jowell: We will clearly listen to the remaining arguments as the Bill concludes its passage through the House.
	Another issue has been of some concern to hon. Members, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is not in his place at present, who has pursued vigorously on behalf of his constituents concerns about cumulative effect, which is also known as saturation or density. Local authorities are rightly concerned that they should have adequate powers to take action to ensure that residents are properly protected from a preponderance of licensed premises of a particular typechiefly, what are described as vertical drinking establishments. We have taken several steps to address those concerns. For instance, we have added the local authority planning committee to the list of expert bodies that will be able to scrutinise applications.
	We have made it clear in the accompanying statutory guidance that licensing authorities will be able to take the cumulative effect of a large number of licensed premises in a concentrated area into account where that is causing problems in relation to meeting the four licensing objectives. Licensing authorities will also be able to make it clear in their statements of licensing policies that for certain areas there would be a presumption against granting any more licences for premises of a particular type; but it is of course important that each case is considered individually.
	Detailed consultation on the statutory guidance that will accompany the Bill is continuing and we will of course have appropriate scrutiny of secondary legislation made under the Bill.
	We have had an enormous amount of debate about the Bill, in this House and in the other place, with the participation of the widest possible range of organisations with an interest in its provisions, both from the industry and from those representing the interests of local communities. Our objective has been to establish a modern framework for licensing that will support the country's flourishing leisure and hospitality industry while at the same time protecting the interests of citizens, consumers and communities. The Bill will deliver on both counts, and I commend it to the House.

John Whittingdale: The Bill was conceived with the best of intentions. It has been promoted throughout its passage as a deregulatory measure. Indeed, the Home Office sold it to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on that basis, and one can almost imagine the glee with which the Home Office lobbed this hot potato at the DCMS saying, Don't worry, it will be very popular. Indeed, all of us will remember the famous text message sent out by the Labour party to thousands of young voters just before the general election:
	cldn't give a XXXX 4 last ordrs? vote Labour 4 xtra time.
	No doubt some of those young people took Labour at its word and did so vote. They, like many others, must now feel somewhat let down, because the Government have completely failed to deliver on their promise.
	Ever since that day it has become steadily more apparent that the Bill is anything but deregulatory. Indeed, every week has resulted in yet another area being exposed as falling victim to the regulatory and bureaucratic requirements that the Bill will impose. The Minister of State, Department of Transportas the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) has becomewas candid enough at the outset to admit that it would have been much better if the Bill had been subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny, as the Communications Bill was. The Secretary of State agreed with that point.
	It has become steadily more apparent as the Bill has been subjected to examination by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and my colleagues in the Standing Committee that it is a complete mess from start to finish. One can only imagine the sigh of relief that the Minister must have given on learning that he would be moved from the DCMS to his new post, an appointment on which we warmly congratulate him. His pleasure can only have been tempered by the slight disappointment of discovering that he would still have to defend the Licensing Bill on Report. It is certain that trying to sort out the mess of our public transport system will seem a pushover after having dealt with the Bill.
	As we made clear on Second Reading, we accept the need for reform of our licensing laws. We support some elements of the Bill. We agree, for instance, with the need for greater flexibility in opening hours, and we accept the argument for doing away with the universal chucking-out time. We are less persuaded that the transfer of licensing responsibility from magistrates to local authorities is either necessary or sensible, and it is interesting that even the Local Government Association is beginning to see problems. In its latest briefing, it argues that
	the Bill still presents a very poor deal for local authorities
	and that significant new burdens will be imposed on authorities. It states:
	without realistic fee levels there will obviously have to be a significant subsidy from the Council Tax.
	Even though we feel that the Government have failed to make the case for the transfer, we accept that they are determined to press ahead. We regret, therefore, that they have been unwilling to accept the stronger safeguards to protect the interests of local residents that we have advocated in our amendments, particularly in the measures advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field).
	The principle that there should be a separation of the licence governing the premises from which alcohol is sold from the personal licence issued to the individual to permit him to serve or sell alcohol is also one that we support in general. That principle has, however, been completely undermined by the Government's insistence that an individual should be named on the premises licence as a designated premises supervisor. That provision destroys almost all the gains in simplicity and reduced bureaucracy that the Government claim to be trying to achieve.
	Indeed, I understand that even the police have conceded that they regard the measure as an unnecessary extra piece of bureaucracy.
	We also regret that the Government are unwilling to accept the establishment of a central licensing authority to administer the new system of personal licences. As a result, the Government continue to expect individual local authorities to remain responsible for the issue of licences to individuals who, many years ago, may have moved far away from the area. When we debated that proposition earlier, the Government argued that local authorities were already well used to issuing licences and that a new authority would not be sensible or cost-effective. In response, I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the view of the LGA that tracking the movement of individuals and of new criminal convictions would be more effectively administered through a national agency. The LGA says that the Lords amendment, to create a central authority, should remain. Indeed, I hope that their lordships will share that view when they reconsider the measure.
	We are disappointed that the common sense shown by their lordships in amending the Bill to prevent unaccompanied children aged under 14 from entering a pub or night club has not been accepted by the Government. I listened carefully to the comments of the Secretary of State in her Third Reading speech and I welcome her undertaking to consider that point further. Many people will find it extraordinary, however, that a Government who trumpet their interest in the welfare of children by creating a Minister for Children can overturn an amendment that would protect young children by requiring that they should be accompanied by an adult if they visit a pub.

Tessa Jowell: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the amendment was criticised by a wide range of children's charities? They felt that it was too rigid that it did not make sufficient distinctions on the presence of children in different kinds of establishment and that it would thus not provide the appropriate degree of protection for children that is the Government's objective.

John Whittingdale: The principle of the amendment was widely supported by children's charities, but I agree that improvements can undoubtedly be made. I hope that discussions between the Government and their lordships will continue and that they will find an amendment that meets our objectives.
	The Government have got many aspects of the Bill wrong, but the provisions that caused the most problems and which most closely resemble a dog's breakfast are those on entertainments licensing. At every stage of the Bill, when objections were raised they were dismissed out of hand by Ministers as nothing but scaremongering, yet time and again Ministers were forced to accept that they were wrong and had to propose new amendments to overcome specific weaknesses; for example, on the requirement that churches should be licensed for the performance of secular entertainment. The Government surrendered early on that issue. The removal of licence fees for schools and sixth-form colleges quickly followed. Since then, Ministers have repeatedly had to return with further amendments, even as late as this afternoon.

Peter Bottomley: I wrote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ask about an event that my wife and I hold regularly, when 80 people pay about 10 for a glass wine and contribute to entertainment in our family room to raise money for a good cause, either the Church or the Tory party. I asked whether I should need a temporary entertainment licence, but I have received no response. I assume that, as the number is about 80 rather than 250, the answer will be yes, because the Government resisted the amendment. If that kind of public-spirited entertainment requires a licence, the Bill, in that detail, must be wrong.

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend's example is typical of hundreds that are being presented by organisations throughout the country. They all believe that they will have to meet an additional tier of regulation and bureaucracy as a result of the Bill. The Minister has assured the House that the provisions will not cover some events, but the organisations that presented evidence to us had obtained professional legal advice in each case.
	Their advice shows very clearly that the Bill, as amended, will cover events of that kind. That is part of the problem. Examples, such as that cited by my hon. Friend, have been given repeatedly, and we have got into the most obscure debate, for instance, about whether or not a marquee with a wooden floor would be exempt from licensing, whereas a dance that took place inside a house with a wooden floor would require licensing. That is complete madness.

Kim Howells: Would the hon. Gentleman like to cite that debate?

John Whittingdale: We discussed such things in a debate on an amendment this evening, and the Historic Houses Association has given that exact example. [Interruption.] Well, earlier this evening, we debated an amendment, suggested by the Historic Houses Association, that was designed precisely to put right that kind of objection, but the problem has arisen because of the Government's decision to insist on a licensing requirement for all public performances of live music.
	All of us agree that the law, was arcane and unjust, but no one believed that the Government's response to the campaign to remove the two-in-a-bar rule would be not to abolish the licensing requirement, but to extend it to all public performances. No convincing explanation has been given about why live music poses risks and problems that broadcast entertainment, however loudly amplified, does not. No explanation has been given about why the system in Scotland, which has no requirement for entertainment licences, would not be appropriate in England, too. It is hardly any wonder that musicians across the land, from morris dancers to metal bands, are united in opposing the Bill.
	This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and I joined members of the Musicians Union in delivering an electronic petition, containing 110,000 signatures, to No. 10 in protest against the Bill. Those signatures were attached to the early-day motion that I tabled a few months ago. Indeed, I suspect that it is a record for an early-day motion to have 110,000 signatures associated with it.
	I draw the Minister's attention, once more, to the finding of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published on Friday, in which it said that there is a significant risk that the Bill is now incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Associated with the Bill is an assurance from the Secretary of State that, in her view, the provisions are compatible with the convention rights, but the Joint Committee now tells us that the Bill, as amended, will leave a patchwork of different licensing requirements, without a coherent rationale, calling in question the existence of a pressing social need for the restriction on freedom of expression through a licensing regime, so undermining the Government's claim that such a licensing regime is a justifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression under the European convention on human rights.
	The solution is very simple. If the Government were to accept the amendment passed in the House of Lords exempting performances attended by fewer than 250 people from needing a licence, almost all that opposition would melt away. I realise that the Government have so far been unwilling to do so, but I predict that the House will have to consider this matter again very soon, and I hope that, if the House of Lords insists on reinserting that amendment, the Government will listen and think again.
	The work done by the House of Lords on all the issues that I have mentioned led to a greatly improved Bill. For that reason, the Conservative party did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. Sadly, nearly all the good work done in the House of Lords has been undone by the Government in Committee. The result is a Bill that is riddled with anomalies, that imposes more regulation rather than less and that will lead to the loss of thousands of venues at which it is currently possible to enjoy live music.
	The Bar Entertainment and Dance Association said:
	Like almost every organisation involved with the development of the Licensing Bill, BEDA remains extremely concerned at the omissions, over elaborations and ill thought through proposals that remain within the legislation at this late stage.
	The Musicians Union, the English Folk Dance and Song Society and the Association of British Jazz Musicians wrote a joint letter, saying that the Bill
	will be a disaster for the performing arts.
	The Government presented a bad Bill. It was improved by the House of Lords, but it has been made worse again by the Government. For that reason, I shall ask my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

Alan Simpson: There is a great deal to be commended and welcomed in the Bill. Its Achilles heel is not an excess of regulation but the absence of regulations that would make it specifically compatible with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
	I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State had to say about those who could make representations in respect of licence applications and the ability of local authority planning departments to make observations, but the Achilles heel was her concluding comment that every application will have to be judged on its merits. I attempted to table amendments that would have given local authorities a specific power to allow the police and licensing authority to reject applications when they reached saturation point, or when an application overwhelmed the police in terms of their ability to deliver on section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act. It is not that we did not reach those amendments to vote on them but that Ministers were unwilling to incorporate them into specific Government proposals that would have written them into the Bill.

Kim Howells: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has been present for these debates, but this subject has been debated more than any other of which I am aware. We have debated the whole business of cumulative effect, which he calls saturation. He has had ample opportunity to take part in those debates, but I am not aware that he did. We have given local residents, police and responsible bodies more opportunity in this Bill to object to licences than they have ever had before, and certainly more than they have currently. I should have thought that he would welcome that rather than resorting to this whingewhich is what it iswhich undermines the effectiveness of our negotiations to ensure that what is in this Bill is communicated effectively to those who will form the licensing authorities.

Alan Simpson: The Minister may dismiss my contribution as a whinge, but it is a whinge made and shared by the police, my local authority and many others. They do not believe that those powers are conferred on them within the framework of the Bill. A briefing produced for me by the police states that
	the generally unrestricted nature of planning and the potential to have streets entirely full of licensed premises is just not workable.
	That was the basis of their fears about the extent to which we will deliver something unpoliceable that will not be about cultural diversity or creative excitement.

Kevan Jones: I say respectfully to my hon. Friend that he clearly has not read the Bill, and neither has his local authority. It gives local authorities the power, in licensing policy, to reflect diversity and, for the first time ever, take into account strong objections from local people to the exact problems affecting them. For the first time, they will have a say, which will address the issue of cumulative effect.

Alan Simpson: The grounds for objection in the Bill are on the basis of an individual assessment of applications, the capacity of the premises, the reputation of the applicant, the building standards and door supervision. The police say that that does not give them the ability to say no to the straw that breaks the camel's backsomething that changes the whole cultural character of what is going on. I am excited about what I currently enjoy in Nottingham, but the city centre management strategy is based on the fact that we have a city centre in which between 5,000 and 10,000 people live. Every Friday night, however, between 105,000 people, which is the estimate of the police, and 120,000 people, which is the estimate of the fire and ambulance services, come in and are part of the culture and dynamism of that city centre.
	The police tell me that their ability to police the area is largely dependent on the diversity of clubs, bars, restaurants, wine bars and pubs, most of which are small or medium-sized. They cannot cope with the prospect that applications for huge watering holes serving 3,000 people cannot be turned down. The big breweries are turning up the pressure on local authorities, and authorities are being told by district auditors that if they appeal, and thus risk wasting council tax payers' money, they might be individually surcharged for breaching their fiduciary duty. If a local licensing authority will have the power to refuse an application on the basis of capacity or because the scale of applications would be incompatible with its city centre management strategy, why have the Government resisted the incorporation of such a provision in the Bill?
	My fear is that there will not be freedom but a free-for-all, that there will not be a culture of celebration but a culture of violence, and that we will not promote vibrant growth and cultural diversity but crime and disorder. I do not want us to squander the opportunities and advantages offered by other parts of the Bill by failing to allow local areas to say no when they think that they have reached their carrying capacity. Provisions on strategic plans in the Crime and Disorder Act are not specifically spelt out in the Bill. Given that the police say that they fear that the Bill will not give them necessary powers, the House should think carefully before supporting it.

Nick Harvey: When the Bill was brought before Parliament, there was a general view across the political spectrum that legislation on such matters was long overdue. Indeed, there was general good will toward the prospect of legislation. The Government headlined the Bill by saying that it would allow more relaxed drinking hours and perhaps 24-hour drinking in some areas. That measure appeared to be popular and they must have believed that they were on to a winner.
	Although the Bill's aim was to be simple and deregulatory, it has ended up being surprisingly complex. Each time a problem has arisen, the solution found has added to the Bill's complexity and produced further problems. Solutions to those problems have created a Bill that has become increasingly cumbersome. I agree that it would have benefited in no small way from pre-legislative scrutiny.
	The former Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting handled the Bill's passage with panache and deftnesswe congratulate him on his promotion but he will be sorely missed as he moves to his new jobbut publicans, musicians, performers and residents remain significantly unhappy. I acknowledge that some of the campaigning outside the House has inflated concerns to an extent that is not entirely proportionate and that the perception of several aspects of the Bill is worse than the reality.
	Publicans fear possible costs. They fear not the licence fee but the cost of meeting conditions that they believe that they will have to fulfil to be granted licences. Not unreasonably, their perception is that the new system will be more bureaucratic than the one that it replaces. They think that they will have to engage advisers and consultants to help them to put together complex operating plans and that there is more far more red tape inherent in the new system than in previous systems.
	If publicans want to change their operating schedule or the names of their designated premises supervisors, the system is more cumbersome and complicated than it used to be. In addition to the concerns of individual publicans, we know that chains of pubs are unhappy that they cannot register their interest in designated premises. We may also come to regret that shortcoming.
	The biggest controversy surrounds live performances and entertainment licensing. Despite everything that the Government and the Minister have said, live performers still believe that fewer venues will be available for live music and performance after the Bill is enacted, and their fears may be well founded. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said that we can all accept the shortcomings of the two-in-a-bar rule in the previous set-up, but that there is a desperate need for a de minimis provision. The Government's biggest mistake is not finding an alternative de minimis provision to replace the two-in-a-bar rule.
	Although the figure of 250 that was suggested in the other place as constituting a small event is on the high side, I sincerely believe that something along those lines is necessary to avoid small entertainments becoming encumbered by a new licensing regime. It is hard to resist the conclusion that that will reduce the number of live performances. Aside from those considerations, it appears that performers such as morris dancers who move around and perform at a variety of venues in quick succession will be caught up in many more licensing provisions than they were in the past.
	The third interest group is the residents who will understandably be aggrieved that residential amenity has not been included in the Bill alongside the other licensing objectives as something that licensing authorities have to take into account when they make their decisions. As we heard, they will also be aggrieved that undertakings from the old regime are not to be carried forward. The ability of a ward councillor to make representations was something that wemyself includedwere wrong to exclude when we sensibly wrote out the provision for MPs and MEPs to be able to do so.
	On other concerns, we heard that the Joint Committee on Human Rights thinks that there are possible breaches of human rights. I am equally uncomfortable about the statutory guidance. Although it will need parliamentary approval at the outset, it will not need it when the Government want to change it.
	I have concluded that, regrettably, the Government have taken a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Much of the Minister's response to specific points came down to existing law already covering various aspects but not, in truth, being implemented. We might have done better to set about implementing existing laws before seeking new legislation. People will look at the Bill and wonder why the Government concluded, for example, that Punch and Judy shows need to be licensed for public entertainment. They will want to know what motivated them to include that in legislation in 2003. Is it because Punch and Judy is sexist, cruel to crocodiles or shows a lack of respect for law and order? Whatever it is, it is an example of the Government putting too much in the Bill and attempting to do too much. With a heavy heart, I conclude that it should not be given a Third Reading.

Kevan Jones: I welcome the Bill, which brings our licensing laws up to date and puts them in a modern setting, clearing away centuries of anachronistic and outdated licensing laws. It fulfils a pledge in our 2001 manifesto to update our licensing laws, and gets the balance right between clamping down on antisocial behaviour and disorder and allowing freedoms for law-abiding citizens to enjoy the leisure activity of drinking alcohol.
	I warmly welcome the opportunity for local people to have a say for the first time ever in the way in which the licensing system operates. I disagree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), who clearly does not understand the Bill and has not followed its passage through the House. It will for the first time give local licensing authorities a chance to set licensing policy. It will promote a more civilised approach to alcohol and introduce laws that will promote good behaviour among most law-abiding citizens.
	I enjoyed serving on the Standing Committee, and shall miss sparring with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). However, many of my hon. Friends and I have made up our mind not to volunteer to serve on another Standing Committee if he is serving on it.

Peter Bottomley: It is clear that the Government should amend the programme motion to allow an extra hour for Third Reading, as many Members, from all parties, would like to contribute to our debate.
	May I repeat[Interruption.] If the Minister could keep quiet and listen, the House would probably welcome that. A point that I made about the Bill in a letter to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has still not been answered. I would be happy to give way to the Secretary of State or the Minister, who dealt with the Bill in Committee, so that they could answer the question that I asked in an earlier intervention. Would someone in my situation need a temporary entertainment licence to do something that disturbs nobody and raises money for a good cause? If so, what is the fee?

Kim Howells: If the hon. Gentleman charges people an admission fee to attend a fund-raising event for the Conservative party in his house and pay for the drink, he will need a licence.

Peter Bottomley: The Minister has come clean. If a church sells the tickets and asks if it can use my room, does it need an entertainment licence, or do I? Where is the fee in the regulations?

Kim Howells: I do not want to get up.

Peter Bottomley: The Minister says openly that he does not want to get up. I rest my case. The Government have not defended the temporary entertainment licence as they should have done, and they are a disgrace.

Ross Cranston: The Bill will modernise and rationalise an arcane body of law, and is therefore to be welcomed. It has a number of ambitious aims to change the culture of drinking and address problems of crime and disorder. The Minister mentioned Hogarth's Gin lane. There is a culture of binge drinking in this country. One survey of young people found that 56 per cent. of 15 to 16-year-olds
	It being six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
	The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 121.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Race Relations

That the draft Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.

Race Relations

That the draft Race Relations Act 1976 (Seamen Recruited Abroad) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 18 June, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Social Security

That the draft State Pension Credit (Decisions and AppealsAmendment) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.[Derek Twigg]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Broad Economic Policy Guidelines

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 8475/03, Commission Recommendation on the Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies of the Member States and the Community (for the 200305 period); and supports the Government's welcome for the publication of the Recommendation and the operational context it provides for addressing the key economic policy issues and priorities over the next three years, in line with the European Union's strategic goal agreed at the Lisbon European Council.

Quality Of Bathing Water

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13789/02, draft Directive concerning the quality of bathing water; and supports the Government's objective that effective, practical and proportionate measures are applied across the European Union to monitor and regulate the quality of bathing water.[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Ordered,
	That the following Statutory Instruments be referred to Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation: the Education (Additional Secondary School Proposals) Regulations 2003, (S.I., 2003, No. 1200), the Education (Outturn Statements) (England) Regulations 2003, (S.I., 2003, No. 1153), the Education (School Organisation Plans) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 1201) and the Education (School Organisation Proposals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 1229).[Derek Twigg.]

Joint Committee On Human Rights

Motion made,
	That Standing Order No. 152B (Human Rights) (Joint Committee)) be amended, in paragraph (5), by leaving out the words 'shall be three, except that for the purposes of taking evidence, the quorum'.[Derek Twigg.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Standing Committee On The Convention

Motion made,
	That the Order [12 June 2002] relating to the Standing Committee on the Convention be amended in paragraph (4)(b), by leaving out the words 'or be counted in the quorum'. Derek Twigg.]
	Hon. Members: Object.

GAS SERVICES (BASSETLAW)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Derek Twigg]

John Mann: I rise to raise an issue that has shocked and surprised me more than any other in the two years for which I have represented the constituency of Bassetlawthat is, access to gas services. I wish first to set the scene in relation to the problem. A 90-year-old pensioner opens the door of her bungalowthe same door that she has opened for many decades. As a widow, she must face the freezing cold this winter, but worse is the risk of falling on the ice. It is black ice. It is always black ice, because of the spillage from the coal that she shovels up. A coal bunker is situated in her garden, as it always has been. Hot ashes are emptied three times a day. A fire is lit in the early morning and maintained through each winter's day. It is a traditional way of life, but there is no romanticism when she slips and falls; no glory when she is too ill to get out of bed; no thermostat to set; and, sadly, no longer a husband to assist in the carrying of the coal. There is no oil piped into the new boiler and there are no solar panels. There is the door and the coal bunker, and between them the four seasons.
	That is the situation for several of the 92 pensioner bungalows on the Bracebridge estate in my constituency. They were all built around the time of the second world war, and none of them has access to gas. They are not remote homesteads in the back of beyond that have been forgotten, or where the price of taking the mains has been regarded as prohibitivethey are in the industrial centre of town. The estate is surrounded on all sides by new build from the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s, all with gas; Properties that were built 100 years ago stand on the opposite side of the street. All have gas.
	I want the Government to consider two key issues. The first is the difficulty and cost of getting connected to gas, and the second is whether competition for gas supply is working. The Gas Act 1986 places a duty on the director general of gas supply to exercise his functions in such a way as to ensure that all reasonable demands for gas are met, provided that that can be done economically. The Act, as amended, is the statutory basis for arrangements that cover connection to the gas main. Section 10 stipulates that
	a public gas supplier shall, upon being required to do so by the owner or occupier, give and continue to give a supply of gas to any premises which . . . are situated within 25 yards from a . . . main.
	There is no right to a connection for properties beyond that limit.
	Public gas suppliers are allowed to charge people who require a gas supply for the expenses of laying the main. Ofgem recognised the difficulties of some communities in obtaining a connection to the gas network. It recently extended the time for recovery of charges from five years to 20 years so that those benefiting from the gas supply at a later date will contribute to the cost of the connection.
	However, the changes do not solve the problems in Bassetlaw. In a debate on 5 December 2001, the then Minister said:
	Communities and individuals are no longer forced to use Transco, but may access one of the dozen independent gas transporters . . . As a result of competition, 70 to 75 per cent. of connections to new housing developments are now carried out by companies other than Transco
	That refers to new housing developments. However, in my constituency, the problem is old housing. Of the 13 gas transporters that are licensed under section 7 of the Gas Act 1986 to convey gas through pipelines to premises, only oneES Pipelines Ltd.expressed to Energywatch any desire to connect the areas in Bassetlaw that are not connected. That followed an Energywatch intervention to ask whether transporters were prepared to do that.
	A range of legislationmost recently, the Utilities Act 2000means that providing connections is fully competitive. Again, I quote the former Minister, who said:
	My hon. Friend espouses the values of competition. As I am, among other things, the Minister for competition, I must encourage him to get behind the notion that competition benefits consumers and has done so tremendously. I am sure that competition is the way forward.[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 5 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 119-20WH.]
	Of course, competition is a good thing in energy if it drives down prices and provides a better deal for the customer. However, if it is not economically viable for one company to extend the pipeline to cater for excluded communities, it will not be economically viable for any of them. What plans does the Department have to deal with that anomaly?
	Gas companies are required to respond only when it is economical for them to do so. Let me cite prices for Bassetlaw that Transco recently gave me. In Blyth, the cost is 4,012 per household for approximately 50 households. In Shireoaks, the cost is 2,413 per household, and in Bracebridge, the initial price that was quoted to Mr. Needle, who was the first of the 92 to ask for gas, was approximately 10,500. I believe that Transco is charging over the odds, citing the regulatory restrictions. Its competitors, with one exception, are not interested in quoting. Yet Ofgem says that it envisaged that prices would continue to fall.

Barry Gardiner: I have listened carefully to the way in which my hon. Friend represents his constituents. Does he know that Transco has a long history of overcharging in what was supposed to be a new competitive environment? Indeed, a couple of years ago, Ofgem had to devise an order to the Gas Act 1986, forcing Transco to comply, be fully competitive and not use anti-competitive practices. My hon. Friend's description of the overcharging of his constituents is a good example of the general way in which Transco treats its customers.

John Mann: My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable in these matters; I know that he has pursued them with vigour in this Parliament and the previous one. The point that he makes is pertinent to this debate.
	Ofgem has advised me that there are independent engineering companies that are also able to install pipes. On 22 May, it advised me that information about independent contractors engaged in laying gas infrastructure was in Yellow Pages and the Thomson directories. That does not seem to be an appropriate way for pensioners such as those in the three areas in my constituency that I have outlined to access the gas supply that the vast majority of people already have.
	It gets worse. The 10-m rule was put out to consultation in April 2003 in a document entitled Competition in one-off gas connections, which suggested price increase options or the abolition of the 10-m rule and of section 10(2)(a) of the Gas Act, as amended. In other words, this would affect the ability of some properties within 10 m of the main to be connected, supposedly for free, but in fact not for free at all. According to Ofgem, the 10-m rule principally affects lower-value domestic connections, yet Ofgem simultaneously states that disadvantaged households will not lose out disproportionately from its abolition. It strikes me that George Orwell must have inspired the writing of that document.
	On investigation, it was discovered that 16 Bracebridge propertiesout of a total of 92could be connected under the 10-m rule, but not for free. The charge would be 312, which is a standard Transco charge. It is an arbitrary charge, because it is the same connection price as that charged for the infill, for which Mr. Needle was quoted 10,500. To summarise: one house could be connected for freeor, rather, for 312while the semi-detached house next door would have to pay double or treble that amount for an identical service to an identical house. If those properties had been connected 20 years ago, it would have been cheap; now, it is expensive. Companies fight to work on new developments paid for by developersthat is where we see the competitionbut there is no competition for doing the infills. I repeat that only two companies will even consider these three areas, and one of themTranscohas no choice but to do so.
	Who are the losers? They are the pensioners in mining communities who have never shifted to gas. The reason that they have not done so is partly an empathy with the industry in which they worked, and partly the concessionary coal that was available. So, when the rest of the country was shifting to gas 20 or 30 years ago, these isolated pockets of pensioners remained. What would the impact be if they did shift to gas? There would be a saving of 2.4 tonnes of CO2 emissions per household. Electric storage heater costs averaging 993 would be reduced to an average of 671 with gas.

Roger Williams: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's views on old coal mining communities, but there are other people who do not have access to mains gas and the economies associated with it, who often have to get their energy from liquefied petroleum gas. The cost per unit of LPG is much higher than that of mains gas. Such people also suffer from not being able to get an economic connection to the mains gas supply.

John Mann: I take the hon. Gentleman's point; he makes a useful contribution to the debate.
	The scale of the problem is illustrated by the fact that 600,000 households would be taken out of fuel poverty if they had proper access to gas. Almost every one of those is a pensioner household. There are particular problems in coal mining areas because of the historic legacy that I have described, and because of their weddednesswhich was quite right at the timeto the financial incentive of concessionary coal. These pensioners are the oldest people in my constituency. The 90-year-old whom I mentioned is an actual example, but there are plenty of those aged between 80 and 90 yearsand some who are over 90in these bungalows. The vast majority now wish to have the choice, and the right to gas.
	I would like six matters to be looked at by the Department. The first is the situation of mining community pensioners who are disproportionately denied the right to choose gas if they wish to do so because of the mess of regulation. Secondly, I would like the extension of the warm zones initiative to Bassetlaw to be seen as a potential way forward. Thirdly, I would like more local authority pilots to be considered to tackle historic infill problems, because, to take one of the three examples, the vast majority of the relevant properties on the Bracebridge estate are council owned, so a potential solution is the council front-loading the cost of connection and allowing the pensioners, through their rents, to pay back over a much longer period.
	Fourthly, I would like consideration to be given to a fuel poverty policy that links to the new energy policyput forward by the Government and agreed by Parliamentwhich prioritises gas as the key energy source for the future. Fifthly, there should be an end to the regulator's pretence that competition is working and clarification of the fact that competition should be in gas supply, not in the building and creation of the infrastructure. Sixthly, I would like to see agreement that the policy of expanding the historic infill gas infrastructure is clearly failing and needs reviewing by the Department.

Nigel Griffiths: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing this debate on an important subject. At his invitation, I have visited his constituency twice in the fairly recent past, and I well know the high regard in which his constituents hold him. He is clearly a Member with his finger on the pulse. I also welcome the brief but thoughtful comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). Clearly, this matter affects a wider area than Bassetlaw.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw specifically highlighted the problem that residents of the Bracebridge area of his constituency have with the network. As he pointed out, Bracebridge has no gas supply, although communities in the surrounding area and close to itI have visited the areahave a supply. That, of course, can be galling for people. I understand that earlier this year Transco was approached to provide an estimate for connecting the 92 properties in his community; I think that he has visited each one. The company quoted more than 900 per property, if I am not mistaken. That is triple the sum that my hon. Friend said that others in his constituency would have to pay. This is a matter of considerable concern to those without access to a gas supply at the lower price.
	My hon. Friend and other Members will be pleased that the design and demonstration unit intends to issue shortly a list of the top 100 communities without gas that are in most need and could be connected at the least cost. That is a refinement of earlier research by Transco's affordable warmth programme, which ranked communities outside the mains gas network on the basis of the index of multiple deprivation. The research indicated that almost 9,000 clusters of communities of more than 50 households had no access to a gas supply, and 4,600 of those were within 2 km of the gas main. I understand that Bracebridge was on that list.
	Clearly, there has to be a sensible way to decide which communities should have the work carried out, to ensure that priority is given to the competing demands from communities across the country. I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's concerns are brought to the attention of the new unit so that they can be taken into account.
	My hon. Friend made a strong bid for the establishment of a warm zone in Bassetlaw. I believe that warm zones can have a significant impact on the reduction of fuel poverty in large areas by focusing closely on communities in those areas, and can address a range of needs by a range of methods. As my hon. Friend will know, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction has supported the first five zones set up in the pilot round that began in 2001. The results of the pilots are currently being evaluated. During that process my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw will have entered into discussions with his local authority, which may want to consider what contribution it could make to the establishment of a warm zone and to discuss its interests with the industry or the warm zone company. I hope that when the results of the pilots are known he will facilitate that discussion, and inform the Minister for Energy of the outcome.
	My hon. Friend mentioned a number of other issues that had caused his constituents understandable concern. Transco is statutorily required to provide a quotation for a connection, but the regulator has determined that the quotation must reflect the actual cost. If Transco did not quote on that basis, it would lay itself open to legal challenges both from competitors and from Ofgem, on the basis of anti-competitive behaviour.

John Mann: Earlier the Minister quoted a Transco price of approximately 900. That, of course, would require a significant proportion of households to agree to be part of the infill. I could approach the 16 properties that are within 10 m of the gas main, and Transco would be obliged to pay for all 16 to be connected at a price of 312. That, however, would mean the building of eight or nine tunnels beneath main roads, at considerable expense. Is there not a lack of logic in the current system? I could be encouraging people to cause far more money to be spent by adopting the piecemeal option, rather than using the money effectively. It would cost more to have those 16 properties connected if they were connected one at a timealthough they would be charged 312than it would to get all the properties connected.

Nigel Griffiths: I understand that my hon. Friend had an extensive discussion about that with Transco representatives when he met them last Friday to put his points forcefully. As he says, a far higher price has been determined by the mechanism that Ofgem, the regulator, applies to properties that are further away. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's views, and those of Transco, are transmitted to the regulator, who must justify that approach.
	My hon. Friend has drawn attention again to the problem of tackling the larger number of local connections, which can cause a great deal of disturbance as well as a great deal of cost. He mentioned fuel poverty earlier, and we take that issue seriously. It is wrong that senior citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable because of their advanced age, have no access to the cheapest and most practical form of fuel.

Roger Williams: This is an important debate for my constituency, which has some rural park home estates. Many of the people living on them are pensioners on limited incomes, but they are forced to access some of the most expensive forms of energy, including electricity and liquid petroleum gas. They have little real hope of gaining access to mains gas, which would be the cheapest form of energy and the best way to eliminate their fuel poverty.

Nigel Griffiths: Clearly, the discrepancies in the price that people pay for energy go to the heart of this Adjournment debate. I made it clear that the problem is not confined to Bassetlaw, although my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw deserves the credit for securing the debate to highlight the issues. He has made several pertinent points, and I know that both the Minister for Energy and the regulator will want to be made aware of them. I can give an undertaking to my hon. Friend and to the House that we will make the Minister for Energy and the regulator aware of my hon. Friend's concerns, which are shared throughout the House. We want to find the best way of ensuring that discrepancies in access to, and choice of, energy are minimised. Whenever practical, people should have a real and genuine choice. As my hon. Friend has made clear, that does not apply to 90 or so households in his constituencynor, I am sure, to others.
	I thank my hon. Friend once again for the concise way in which he expressed his pertinent points. I assure him that his concerns will be listened to carefully.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Two o'clock.